Railways Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Railways Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended, so that the period expires at the end of 29 April 2027 rather than at the end of 4 November 2026.
The Railways Bill places passengers back at the heart of our railway. By establishing Great British Railways it provides a framework to ensure a robust, high-quality offer for passengers, including disabled passengers, to instil confidence in our railways and to attract more people to use them. Great British Railways will also ensure that we harness the economic and environmental opportunities of rail freight, underpinned by two statutory duties related to freight. Great British Railways will be tasked with maximising freight growth in a sustainable way, providing confidence to freight customers and the wider sector that the industry is being prioritised.
Great British Railways will also ensure that the needs of communities up and down the country are considered at every turn. A bespoke partnerships framework will require Great British Railways to work hand in hand with local authorities to ensure that local communities receive the services they need.
As hon. Members will be aware, this legislation is currently undergoing scrutiny in the other place. It is important that that work continues and that the Bill reaches the statute book. The motion simply ensures that Parliament has sufficient time available to scrutinise the Bill. With that in mind, if hon. Members wish to raise any specific concerns, I invite them to do so in writing to my Department, where I am sure my colleague the Rail Minister will be more than happy to respond.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Goodness, I thought we had a Rail Minister in front of us. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Simon Lightwood
What a truly bizarre performance by the shadow Secretary of State. I hope that it makes more sense with subtitles. He should not give up his day job, because he would make an absolutely lousy comedian.
The Railways Bill puts passengers back at the heart of our railway by establishing Great British Railways, and provides the framework to ensure a robust, high-quality offer for passengers, including disabled passengers, and to instil confidence in our railways and attract more people to use them.
Question put.
Transport
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Lightwood
Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long-term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority, building on the £2.9 billion being invested between 2024 and 2029.—[Official Report, 3 November 2026; Vol. 792, c. 357WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood):
Simon Lightwood
Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long-term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority, building on the £2.6 billion being invested between 2024 and 2029.
Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(2 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate and on raising this important subject. I am grateful to him for giving the House the opportunity to reflect on the enormously valuable contribution that community transport makes to communities across the country. I want to begin by putting on record this Government’s strong support for the community transport sector and our appreciation for the staff and volunteers who make those services possible.
I pay tribute to FISH, in this plaice, for doing a fantastic job. [Laughter.] It really does make a splash for all the right reasons. The people there are o-fish-ally doing a great job—I could not resist that, as the hon. Gentleman gave me a heads-up that he would mention the charity.
On a more serious note, community transport can provide a real lifeline, particularly for older and disabled people, those who are vulnerable or isolated and people living in rural areas where other public transport options are limited. It helps people get to work, education, healthcare and other essential services. Just as importantly, it allows people to see friends and family, take part in community life and maintain their independence. The scale of that contribution should not be underestimated.
Community transport operators providing around 13.8 million passenger journeys each year. This is ultimately not just a debate about driving licence categories or regulations; it is about people’s ability to get where they need to go and to remain connected to the communities in which they live. That is why the Government provide practical support to the sector. The Department for Transport provides the Community Transport Association with an annual grant to support its work with its members and the wider sector. We also make available up to £3.8 million each year to eligible community transport operators through the bus service operators grant, helping operators with their running costs. A 60% uplift has been added to community transport claims until 31 March 2027, with further support during the current period of increased fuel costs.
Our support is not simply about direct financial assistance. We want community transport to be properly recognised as part of the wider transport network. We encourage local authorities to consider community transport within their local transport planning and to look at how those services can complement conventional fixed-route bus services and improve connectivity. That is particularly important in places where community transport fills gaps that other transport services cannot easily fill.
I turn now to the specific issue that the hon. Member has raised today: the rules governing the driving of minibuses. I recognise very clearly the concern within the community transport sector about the availability of drivers with category D1 entitlement. Prior to 1997, someone obtaining a car licence was automatically granted the restricted category D1 entitlement—commonly known as D1(101)—allowing them to drive a minibus when it was not being driven for hire or reward. The automatic entitlement ceased for people passing their car test from 1 January 1997. Since then, drivers have generally needed to pass an additional test to obtain a category D1 entitlement, although there are limited circumstances in which a holder of a category B car licence may drive a minibus without a full D1 licence.
The practical consequences are that drivers who retain a category D1 through those so-called grandfather rights are gradually getting older, and the number of drivers with D1 is gradually reducing. I understand the concern that this creates for community transport operators, which have traditionally relied on this cohort of drivers. The CTA has made the case strongly that a diminishing pool of D1 drivers is making recruitment more difficult and imposing additional costs on organisations that need to train new ones. I want to acknowledge the constructive work that the association has done in bringing this issue to the Government and to Parliament; during Community Transport Week in October, the CTA held an event here in Parliament and launched its white paper, setting out its case for changes to the licensing arrangements. The Department is aware of that proposal and we are actively reviewing it.
I recognise the seriousness of the concern behind that work and the effort that the CTA has made to develop a practical proposal. At the same time, however, the Government must consider any proposed change to driver licensing arrangements very carefully. This consideration also takes place within the wider framework of the Government’s road safety strategy, which was published earlier this year. The strategy reiterates the Government’s commitment to reducing those killed and seriously injured on our roads, and to ensuring that road safety impacts are properly considered when developing transport policy. Any changes to driver licensing arrangements therefore need to be assessed in terms not only of accessibility, workforce availability and operational benefits, but also in terms of their implications for road safety outcomes.
I had a look before coming here tonight, and I can tell the House the statistics from 2025, the last full year of pass rates for D1. Of the 3,069 tests taken, 2,511 were passed but 552 were failed. Under some proposed changes, those without this D1 qualification could potentially be driving minibuses, and we can see how important safety is when considering the implications of any changes. Minibuses can carry up to 16 passengers in addition to the driver. They can weigh up to 5 tonnes and be driven at speeds of up to 70 mph. The responsibility placed on the person driving such a vehicle is therefore different from that involved in driving a private car. Also, many of the passengers who depend on community transport are themselves older, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. While I absolutely recognise the pressures facing operators, road and passenger safety must remain at the heart of our consideration of any changes to the licensing regime.
Tessa Munt
Can I ask the Minister how many accidents there have been involving community minibuses in the last two or three years, please? If he does not know, might he be able to write to me with that information? I realise this is a very serious matter, and I just wondered how many incidents there were.
Simon Lightwood
I commit to write to the hon. Lady on that matter, as I do not have the information to hand.
Of course, what I have said does not mean that the Government should close their mind to reform—quite the contrary—but it does mean that we must be satisfied that changes designed to make it easier to obtain the necessary entitlement do not introduce unacceptable risks for minibus passengers or for other road users.
That balance between flexibility and safety is not a new question. In 2022, the previous Government held a substantial call for evidence to look at potential reforms to driver licensing regimes, and one of the questions considered was whether people holding a category B car licence should be granted entitlement to drive category D1 minibuses. The review ran between August and October 2022, and deliberately sought evidence about whether reforms could widen the pool of minibus drivers while maintaining the safe use of our roads. The response demonstrated significant support for the change, but that is not by itself the same thing as evidence that the change can be made safely. The Department’s assessment of that exercise was that, although there was strong support for extending driving licence entitlement, the evidence presented was not sufficient to allow us to fully understand and assess the associated road safety risks. I understand that the Community Transport Association does not agree that the evidence currently available justifies maintaining the existing position. That evidence gap is, however, important. It is why the Department has continued to say that any potential relaxation of the D1 requirements needs to be considered alongside the implications for road safety.
I do not want the hon. Member for Henley and Thame to take from what I have said that the Government are insensitive to the problem he has described—far from it. We recognise the demographic issue affecting holders of D1 grandfather rights. We recognise what community transport operators are telling us about recruiting drivers. We recognise the argument that the costs and practicalities associated with obtaining a D1 entitlement may be particularly challenging for small, community-based and not-for-profit organisations. Through its proposal for reform, the Community Transport Association believes that it can address those pressures while providing appropriate safeguards. We will consider that contribution seriously, but we will also continue to place passenger and road safety at the centre of our consideration.
I hope Members across the House would agree that those two objectives—of supporting the sustainability of community transport and ensuring that people can travel safely—should not be regarded as opposing ambitions. Our task now is to determine how best to secure both.
Question put and agreed to.
Train Services: Extreme Weather
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(2 days, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I begin by expressing my sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in the tragic train crash in Toledo, Spain, on 28 October and to all those affected. I know that the UK rail accident investigation branch was quick to offer its expertise and support to its counterparts in Spain in the aftermath of the tragedy. I also want to acknowledge the recent derailments at Lewes and Wickford and the collision at Bedford over the summer. My thoughts are with everyone affected by those incidents. I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in paying tribute to the emergency services and all those involved in the responses.
Those incidents are a reminder of our responsibility to remain vigilant, learn from what has happened and maintain an unwavering focus on safety. As the relevant independent authorities continue their investigations, it is important that we avoid speculation and allow their work to conclude before drawing any conclusions about causes.
I am pleased to speak about the impact of extreme weather on train services. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate, and I thank all other Members for their contributions. If I do not manage to address specific points, I assure Members that the Rail Minister will have heard them, and they can always follow up in writing.
The effects of extreme weather on the railways are felt not as abstract statistics, as my by-election twin, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), said. This is about not just statistics but missed connections, disrupted working days, uncertainty for passengers and freight, and the impacts on local economies and customers. Communities need a railway that is safe and reliable and able to recover quickly when conditions deteriorate.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
In Cumbria, we fully appreciate how disruptive bad weather can be, and we have quite a lot of experience of it, but we do not appreciate why bad weather in Scotland can mean that trains heading north on the west coast main line terminate in Preston, which is nearly an hour away from Penrith and even further away from Carlisle. Will the Minister commit to writing to Avanti and Network Rail to determine why that is and consider solutions that might get my constituents home a bit quicker?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend raises a really interesting question. I do not know the answer, but I will make sure I speak to the Rail Minister and see what answers we can get for my hon. Friend.
This summer brought the challenges we are discussing into sharp focus. The UK experienced five widespread heatwaves between May and August. In June, the Met Office issued a rare red extreme heat warning. During the most severe conditions, on 24 and 25 June, passengers were advised to make only essential journeys in affected areas, including the west midlands. Services continued to run, but safety required reduced speeds and amended timetables. That meant longer journeys and a greater risk of delays, cancellations and late changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase is right to highlight the experience in his constituency. This summer, heat reduced Chase line services, while intense rainfall flooded the railway between Hednesford and Rugeley and forced trains to terminate at Hednesford. Further storms disrupted services in October. These events reinforce the need for better preparations, including drainage, targeted investment in resilience and strong local partnership working. Network Rail has produced a weather resilience and climate change adaptation plan for each of our regions, and those plans indicate where investment may be needed during hot weather and how issues can be addressed.
The first duty of the railway is, of course, to keep passengers and staff safe. Speed restrictions, targeted inspections and temporary closures can be really frustrating, but they are needed to ensure a safe railway. The task is to make those decisions earlier and more precisely, communicate them clearly and restore the service as quickly as conditions allow.
The industry has drawn practical lessons from summer 2026, including preparing earlier, focusing on the greatest risks, planning for prolonged heat, and making decisions sooner. Operationally, that means acting as one railway, using restrictions in a targeted way, building recovery into the response and adapting quickly as evidence changes. The Railways Bill will establish Great British Railways, which will integrate operations and infrastructure in regional routes to ensure that they act as one railway. In the meantime, the rail industry has established a climate change programme co-chaired by Network Rail and Department for Transport Operator Limited to provide strategic direction, align the industry and monitor delivery.
Preparation is not confined to summer, nor are climate risks confined to heat and the consequential moisture and soil deficit in many areas. The developing El Niño is expected to increase the chances of wetter, stormy conditions across the UK this autumn and in early winter, with stronger winds and increased risks of heavy rainfall and flooding. Colder spells are also possible. The railway is therefore preparing for a range of conditions using drones, specialist treatment trains and autumn forecasts, while managing vulnerable trees, planning contingency timetables, monitoring conditions in real time and deploying winter equipment to keep passengers moving safely.
As well as operational preparedness, we need to look to the future. Summers such as the one we experienced this year will become increasingly common. As was said, extreme weather has become the weather. The changing climate means that resilience cannot simply be something that we consider after extreme weather strikes. It needs to be built into the everyday decisions we make about how the transport system is maintained, operated and funded. That is why the Department for Transport launched its climate adaptation strategy for transport in December 2025, setting out our vision for a transport system that is safe, reliable and resilient to a changing climate.
Importantly, the strategy is about turning that ambition into practical change, supporting the transport system to prepare for the impacts of climate change by setting the strategic direction, strengthening the evidence base and embedding adaptation into planning and decision making. That approach is already being put into practice on the railway. Network Rail is pioneering work on adaptation planning through its adaptation pathways so that investment can be prioritised and staged as risks change.
Publicly owned train operators have for the first time also developed weather resilience and climate adaptation plans looking at climate risks across the railway, not only in respect of infrastructure, but to staff and customer welfare too. For example, working air con is equally important. Just yesterday, the Department for Transport published the first transport resilience strategy to provide strategic direction to improve the resilience of the transport sector and ensure that resilience principles are embedded in decision making and planning. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) will be pleased to know that as part of that work, we are setting up a four nations transport resilience group.
Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long-term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority, building on the £2.9 billion being invested between 2024 and 2029. That has been invested in activity but also technology to improve resilience to extreme weather and climate change.
Steve Darling
A few months ago, Network Rail met me and other south-west MPs who are here today and told us that it is occasionally acceptable to close the Dawlish rail line. Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable?
Simon Lightwood
I will come on to talk specifically about the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. All endeavours are being made and a great deal of funding has gone in to make that track as resilient as possible. I do not think that anybody wants to suspend services through that area, but unfortunately there will be instances where that may have to be done. The investment that has put in has made it more resilient; we saw that during the latest storms, when the line was reopened the day after its closure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and the hon. Member for Torbay talked about south-west rail resilience. I think that more than £165 million has been invested through the south-west rail resilience programme, including a new seawall, a rockfall shelter at Parson’s tunnel to Teignmouth and major cliff stabilisation work. As I just said, the value of that investment was demonstrated during the storms at the start of this year. This year also saw Cornwall’s worst ever rainfall totals, but the new seawall performed as designed, helping to protect the infrastructure from major damage and allowing the line to reopen the very next day.
Phase 5 of the resilience programme was not funded as part of the 2025 spending review. We are continuing to fund investigative work on that section of the route. Network Rail is currently undertaking a drainage trial to remove water from the cliffs, as well as further ground investigation. That will give National Rail the more detailed data that it needs for longer term solutions. All the monitoring equipment that is installed in those areas of the cliff between Parson’s tunnel and Teignmouth will help to provide a quick response when triggered. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) also mentioned Northern; it is procuring, I think, 450 new trains due in 2031. I appreciate that feels like a long time away but it is also looking at shorter term options to improve capacity.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and hon. Members throughout the House that this Government recognise both the immediate disruption experienced by passengers and the longer term challenge facing our railway. In a single season, Cannock Chase has seen the effect of heat, intense rainfall and storms. We will continue to work with Network Rail, train operators and local partners to learn from those events, improve drainage and operational preparedness, target investment where risk is greatest, and give passengers clearer information. Extreme weather cannot be prevented but its consequences can be better anticipated, managed and reduced. That is how we will secure a safer, more reliable and more resilient railway for Cannock Chase and for communities across the country.
Heathrow Airport Expansion
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to today’s debate. I thank the hon. Members in attendance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for bringing this important debate to the House.
Hon. Members may have noticed that I am not the Aviation Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) is attending Committee proceedings on the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill. However, I am here as the Minister for Local Transport. I care deeply about the impacts of the expansion on the wider transport network. That means considering how people travel to and from the airport and ensuring that transport infrastructure is able to meet future demand while supporting local communities.
Simon Lightwood
I will make a bit of progress, if the hon. Member does not mind. We are a bit short on time.
I may not be able to respond to every question raised during the debate, as the Government are currently considering the consultation responses, and parliamentary scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement—or HENPS—remains ongoing. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt those processes or prejudge any future decisions while that work remains under way. However, I will ensure that hon. Members receive responses in due course to any points that I am unable to cover.
This Government recognise Heathrow’s critical role as the UK’s only hub airport, connecting businesses and passengers to global markets and supporting trade, tourism and investment across the country.
Simon Lightwood
I am still going to make a bit of progress; I have limited time, and I want to reply to the points raised.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Government published the draft HENPS consultation in June. That set out the proposed planning policy framework for expansion and the requirements that any future scheme would need to meet, including the Government’s four tests on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise.
As I have noted, we are carefully considering the more than 27,000 responses received and will also consider the recommendations of the Transport Committee. Any finalised HENPS would also be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and a vote in the House, before it could have legal effect.
The draft HENPS does not grant development consent for expansion. Only when a national policy statement has been designated can proposals for a development consent order be brought forward. Any future proposal by a promoter of expansion would still need to progress through the statutory development consent order process and demonstrate that it met the requirements of the relevant policy framework. It is for potential promoters to determine the timetable and sequencing of their proposals, and for the Government to put the right frameworks in place. Any potential promoter bringing forward a scheme of this scale and complexity will need to balance pace with deliverability, affordability and value for money for passengers.
Given the current stage of the consultation process and the ongoing period of parliamentary scrutiny, I will not seek to pre-empt those processes, and my remarks today should be considered in that context. The Government will provide a more substantive update to the House once we are in a position to do so. That said, I will address some of the points raised during today’s debate where I can.
John McDonnell
I understand the difficulty that the Minister is in, and I have a lot of sympathy for him; I would not want to be associated with this thing either. There is one issue that I would like him to write to us on. The air quality working group will report in three months’ time, which could possibly be after a decision is made by the Government. One of the things that we will be asking for, if any framework is developed, is for the Government to set a limit that we should aim for on ultrafine particles. In Europe, they do that, and it is increasingly becoming a legal requirement to monitor them there. We have no monitoring and no limit. If he could write to me about the Government’s consideration of that, it would be really helpful.
Simon Lightwood
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come on to ultrafine particles in a bit. First, turning to the four tests—economic growth being the first—expansion could generate economic growth across the country, with updated analysis indicating potential cumulative benefits of between £39 billion and £52 billion to UK passengers and the wider economy, including lower fares, increased flight frequencies and fewer delays.
Ayoub Khan
With any infrastructure project, there will obviously be a balance between growth and the economy on the one hand, and the impact on the environment and many families on the other. In this case, it seems that the growth does not outweigh the negative impact. May I digress a little? It may be unsurprising that we do not have transport infrastructure, given the cost to drivers who have to park at airports. Sixteen of the top 20 airports across the UK have faced an increase of more than 33% in six months. Drivers are calling it an absolute rip-off; 81% of those surveyed agree. Will the Minister consider reducing the costs, or involving himself in that?
Simon Lightwood
I am sure that the Aviation Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s message and will be delighted to respond to him.
Any promoter must give evidence that expansion will deliver benefits across the country, not just locally. Analysis published alongside the draft HENPS indicates that up to 40% of the estimated GDP growth is expected to accrue in regions outside London and the south-east.
Deirdre Costigan
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his limited time. Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall have responded to the consultation. Noise has been a particular concern, so I hope that he will manage to make some remarks on how realistic steeper landing approaches and new aircraft technology might be in addressing noise.
I also want to talk about jobs. The Minister talks about growth. Many of my constituents work at the airport, and their worry is that if the expansion does not go ahead, we will lose our status as a hub airport and their jobs might be at risk in the future. Is the Minister able to say anything to reassure the many workers from my constituency in good-quality jobs at Heathrow airport?
Simon Lightwood
Once again, I am sure the Aviation Minister will have heard my hon. Friend, and I will go on to address some of those issues.
The draft HENPS introduces a new test requiring potential promoters for development consent to demonstrate, through a clear, evidence-based growth strategy, how their scheme will support economic activity and growth at national, regional and local levels.
I will move on to climate change. The draft HENPS contains a clear climate change requirement whereby any increase in carbon emissions resulting from a proposed scheme must not be so significant that it would have a material impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets. For expansion to proceed, it would need to align with the Government’s climate goals, including our legal commitment to reach net zero by 2050. Any increase in carbon emissions associated with Heathrow expansion would need to be considered against the Government’s carbon reduction targets and the mitigation requirements set out in the draft HENPS.
On air quality, the draft HENPS is also clear that a scheme for Heathrow expansion must demonstrate that it will not result in any new breaches of legal obligations on air quality or make existing breaches materially worse. As part of that, the draft HENPS sets out mitigations that a potential promoter should consider to minimise the impact of the project on the environment and affected communities.
Finally, the draft HENPS sets out a noise test requiring overall aircraft noise to be limited and, where reasonably possible, reduced in comparison with 2024, taking into account quieter aircraft and operating procedures while providing adequate and predictable respite for communities. The mitigations should include a runway alternation scheme and a scheduled night flight ban. The draft HENPS currently requires an applicant to propose a scheduled night flight ban of six and a half hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, as part of their proposed mitigations of the noise impacts. Expansion would increase capacity, which may provide greater operational flexibility and allow aircraft to land more efficiently, potentially reducing reliance on extended holding patterns. That could benefit people living in the areas currently affected by noise from aircraft in holding patterns before landing.
Through the consultation, we are listening carefully to views across all four tests. However, I want to make it clear that we recognise that noise and air quality are particularly important to many local residents, and we are committed to ensuring that those concerns are fully considered as part of the process.
The draft HENPS also makes it clear that Heathrow expansion must be supported by a credible surface access strategy that enables more journeys to be made on public transport and reduces pressure on the wider transport network. The draft HENPS defines clear passenger public transport mode share targets. However, the onus will be on any potential promoter to demonstrate through the development consent order process that their proposed approach can credibly achieve those targets. Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed.
Simon Lightwood
I am sure the Aviation Minister will have more to say on that. There has been much in the media about the Government looking at this area, and I am sure the Aviation Minister will continue to engage with hon. Members on airport drop-offs.
On affordability, Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, as I have said, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed. That includes the surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport. The Civil Aviation Authority is continuing to develop the future regulatory framework for expansion, including by considering how costs are assessed, managed and, where appropriate, recovered. The CAA’s primary duty is to protect the interests of consumers, and affordability will be important.
Hon. Members mentioned the consultation period. We believe that a consultation period of more than 10 weeks was proportionate for reviewing amendments to an existing national policy statement, rather than a brand-new statement. The consultation period was designed to take into account the summer holiday period. It was carried out in accordance with section 7 of the Planning Act 2008 and in line with the Cabinet Office consultation principles, which require consultations to last for a proportionate amount of time.
Hon. Members also mentioned the Climate Change Committee, which has identified one potential pathway and important conditions that it considers necessary. We are considering that advice alongside the wider evidence and will set out the Government’s conclusions in our formal response.
I thank all Members for attending today’s debate. As noted, the Government will give due regard to the recommendations of the Transport Committee, alongside the responses received during the consultation, before determining the next steps on Heathrow expansion. Without wishing to prejudge the process, any finalised HENPS will be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and vote in this House, before it can have legal effect, giving hon. Members the opportunity to consider the proposal and exercise their right to vote either for or against it.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call Fleur Anderson to wind up the debate, let me say that the Minister has stepped in for the Aviation Minister, who I appreciate is on other ministerial business and has committed to writing to a number of colleagues to deal with specific issues. I want to put it on the record that that commitment has been made, and I expect it to happen.
Chetwynd Bridge
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I commend the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) to seeing this crucial bridge in his constituency replaced.
The Government are committed to improving the condition of local roads. I recognise that restrictions and closures are sometimes unavoidable for safety reasons, but their costs are considerable. Diversions cost businesses money, take up drivers’ time and can increase congestion on other roads, and I also recognise what my hon. Friend said regarding emergency services.
I want to ensure that all highway authorities have what they need to manage their assets as effectively and efficiently as possible to avoid those impacts. We are therefore supporting highway authorities with record investment of £7.3 billion for local highways maintenance over the next four years. That clearly demonstrates our commitment to tackling the poor state of our local roads, which is the result of historical under-investment.
We are also ensuring that every single pound of our record investment goes further. The long-term certainty of our four-year settlement allows authorities to plan ahead and shift from reactive fixes to proactive, preventive maintenance, which reduces unplanned disruptions and means that funding can be spent more efficiently.
Alongside our record uplift in highways maintenance, the Government have launched the structures fund. Too much of the country’s vital transport infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate, creating risks for communities, businesses and the wider economy. Across the country, around 3,000 bridges are currently unable to carry the heaviest vehicles, restricting freight and agricultural traffic. The Government believe that repairing or replacing those assets is essential if our transport network is to remain safe, reliable and resilient for the future.
The structures fund will provide capital funding for repair or replacement of major local highway structures that local highway authorities cannot afford to restore from their own budgets. Eligible assets include bridges, flyovers and retaining walls. The Government want those investments not only to repair ageing infrastructure, but to ensure structures are fit for modern transport demands and more resilient to extreme weather events.
As climate risks increase, strengthening critical assets now will help to avoid future disruption and long-term costs. Local highway authorities had until 3 August to put structures forward for investment, and we expect to announce funding awards in the autumn. I was pleased that Staffordshire county council put Chetwynd bridge forward for the fund, and so effectively conveyed the strength of local support for its plans to replace the structure.
It is a testament to the country’s excellence in engineering that a pre-1830s cast-iron bridge still forms part of our road network. I recognise the challenges that modern traffic poses to such old assets, and I appreciate the stewardship that Staffordshire county council has demonstrated over the last few years in managing it. I also appreciate the crossing’s importance to local communities, businesses and key stakeholders, such as the National Memorial Arboretum.
I recognise the traffic management and compliance challenges posed by the current 7.5-tonne weight and 2.3-metre width restrictions, but road users will no doubt appreciate that it remains open to some traffic. I commend again my hon. Friend’s commitment to seeing this crucial bridge in his constituency replaced. He remarked earlier that Chetwynd bridge is not famous—but trust me, Ms McVey, after endless campaigning, it definitely feels famous to me.
My hon. Friend’s constituents should be in no doubt how hard he fights for his community. Although he did not invite me to Bloodstock, I would be delighted to accompany you, Ms McVey. I recognise that the current restrictions are causing his constituents disruption, and we will of course update them as soon as possible when we announce the successful structures fund schemes.
Question put and agreed to.
Bus Fare Cap
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) made the following ministerial statement on 22 July 2026:
I wish to inform the House that the Government are today announcing single bus tickets will be capped at £2 in England outside London from 1 January until 31 December 2027. This measure will mean millions of passengers could save up to a third off a single journey, helping with the cost of everyday travel and supporting access to work, education, healthcare and leisure.
The new £2 cap is backed by £400 million of extra Government funding. This action to ease the cost of living is being funded by savings from reprioritising the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s budget, including by switching funding for international climate from grants to loans.
The scheme will replace the existing £3 fare cap and ensure that eligible single bus fares on participating services cost no more than £2. It will particularly benefit passengers making longer-distance journeys, including those in rural and coastal communities, where fares can often be significantly higher.
Today’s announcement sits alongside the Government’s wider investment in buses. Earlier this year, we announced over £100 million of additional support for the bus sector, including free bus travel for children aged five to 15 on participating services in August as part of the Great British summer savings scheme. This investment also includes funding for local transport authorities and bus operators to address rising costs in the sector, helping to maintain services and keep fares affordable. We have today confirmed the individual allocations local transport authorities will receive.
The Government recognise that affordable fares are only one part of delivering better bus services. We have already committed more than £3 billion for buses over the next three years, alongside significant reforms through the Bus Services Act 2025. These reforms give local transport authorities greater powers and flexibility to shape bus services around the needs of their communities, whether through franchising, enhanced partnerships or other locally led approaches.
This Government are committed to ensuring that buses remain affordable, reliable and accessible. By reducing fares, supporting local transport authorities and providing long-term funding certainty, we are helping people stay connected to opportunities, supporting local economies and laying the foundations for stronger bus networks across the country.
[HCWS297]
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent private Member’s Bill, which the Government were happy to support as it tackles a very real problem. The Bill has received Royal Assent and will become law on 29 August; we will start the consultation as soon as is practicable thereafter.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week at business questions I raised the case of Tyrrell Court in Wakefield, where the social landlord, Wakefield and District Housing, has added a new service charge for communal lighting on top of the charge for window cleaning and communal cleaning, despite people having been tenants for 20 years without ever being charged that fee before. It adds up to £125 extra per year. Is the Secretary of State as concerned as I am that landlords are introducing these charges when people can afford them least?
Michael Gove
It does indeed sound a concerning case, and we will follow up.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Before I answer the questions, may I on behalf of the Government extend my congratulations to Humza Yousaf on his election as leader of the Scottish National party? We look forward to working with him in the future. It has been noted that he won by 52% to 48%, so I hope that SNP colleagues will agree that there is no need for another vote.
Everyone should have access to a high-quality and safe affordable home. Our affordable homes programme is investing £11.5 billion to deliver tens of thousands of new affordable homes, and a significant proportion will be made available for social rent, directly helping those most in need.
Simon Lightwood
Last year the Public Accounts Committee assessed the Government’s affordable homes programme. It concluded that targets were being missed, that areas with high demand were not prioritised and that savings to be made by reducing temporary accommodation were not assessed. In Wakefield the council is using hotels such as Citilodge to house homeless people, because it lacks the funding and resources to acquire enough social housing. When will the Government step in and help councils to address the social housing shortage?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he makes. There is a housing shortage overall, not just in social housing, and we need to work with local government and others to increase supply. The affordable homes programme is a critical part of that, and that money would not be available if we were to follow the prescriptions on the economy that those on the shadow Front Bench put forward.