Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a joy to continue serving under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Stuart—I am thoroughly enjoying it, and I hope you are as well.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing a very important debate, which I think would have been even better attended if it had not clashed with the Railways Bill. This issue matters hugely to so many of us, but I am sure it also matters to many Members who are in the main Chamber. He made a really strong case for rural rail services in his beautiful constituency, as did the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), who made a really good speech that highlighted the issues affecting her lovely part of the world.

The major timetable update that we expect on 14 December is a source of significant worry for many of us in rural communities. Although there are some exciting developments that I am sure the Minister will list, we fear that the changes will be overwhelmingly urban and intercity focused, just like those introduced in May. They offer far too little to the rural communities that the Liberal Democrats now represent so comprehensively from Wick to Penzance, with Oxenholme pretty much halfway.

Rural rail routes suffer from limited frequency, infrastructure constraints and, ultimately, a lack of investment in tracks, stations and rolling stock. On the Lakes line, the Furness line and the Cumbrian coastal line, we see hourly services if we are lucky, whereas it is closer to every two hours on the Settle to Carlisle line. This has a negative impact on commuters, on school and college students, and on our vital visitor economy, which serves 20 million people, provides jobs for 60,000 and is worth £4.5 billion to the economy every year.

Connecting to local buses, which hon. Members have mentioned, becomes precarious when even small timetable changes can blow apart entire journey plans. In Grange-over-Sands, buses and trains coincide at exactly the same time on each hour, and predictable lateness on both roads and rail mean that there can be no certainty of interconnectivity. People seeking to get home to Cartmel, Flookburgh, Allithwaite and Lindale live with the daily anxiety of not knowing whether they will make their connection. On the Leeds-Settle-Carlisle line, villages in Yorkshire and Cumbria miss out because passenger services to rural communities have been downgraded. The 13.37 service from Carlisle to Leeds, which passes through my constituency, has been converted into a semi-fast service, so it misses out most of the intermediate stations. By working with local campaigners, we have thankfully secured additional stops at Garsdale and Ribblehead, but Armathwaite, Lazonby, Langwathby, Dent and Haughton are still bypassed, leaving those communities with a four-hour gap in southbound services in the afternoon. The Government would never tolerate this sort of thing in an urban community.

An additional example of rural and northern communities being overlooked is the network closures in January during the Clifton bridge work—something that will impact pretty much everybody on the west side of the country. Passengers changing at Oxenholme between the Lakes line and TransPennine Express services to Manchester airport face waits of almost an hour in both directions, but that is not the half of it, because Avanti has chosen not to serve Oxenholme at all. This is hardly a surprise to many of us, because whenever there is a problem with the track in Scotland or Cumbria, Avanti almost always chooses to cancel all services north of Preston anyway. We are used to Avanti treating Cumbria, north Lancashire and Scotland as if we do not exist, but as predictable as this is, it is not acceptable.

If Avanti’s normal London timings had been maintained as far as Oxenholme, the connection with the Lakes line could have continued. Alternatively, TransPennine Express, which is still operating, could have taken over those timings, but it sadly declined. Even if its trains could not continue beyond Preston, a simple Preston to Oxenholme shuttle would have kept a reliable interchange in place and still provided four trains per hour to Manchester.

With years of west coast main line upgrade work still to come, the lack of planning for rural connectivity cannot be allowed to continue, and the upgrades do not promise enough for the main line in the rural far north-west of England. I think it would be fair to conclude that we saw that most acutely with the derailment on the southbound track at Shap on 3 November. It was not a laughing matter, and we were very grateful that no one was seriously injured, but that derailment has surely got to be a wake-up call for Network Rail.

[Rachel Gilmour]

I have three nuclear facilities in my constituency: Hinkley A, B and C. David Peattie, the chief executive officer of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, has referred to the horrible incident at Shap, because the NDA runs nuclear waste on trains on that rail line. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there had been nuclear waste on that train, the situation would have been even worse?

[Tim Farron]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The horror was even closer to happening than that: nobody was hurt and the train remained upright between the tracks, but it was about eight minutes off being hit by the northbound train going in the opposite direction, which would undoubtedly have led to catastrophic loss of life. I do not want to pre-empt the ongoing investigation by the rail accident investigation branch, but we cannot help wondering whether the failure of this Government and the previous Government to fund the upgrades necessary to ensure the resilience both of the line and of the embankment between Warrington and Lockerbie could have played a part in that terrifying near miss.

There is much to welcome—the Liberal Democrats welcome the expansion of contactless fares into more rural and suburban areas of the London commuter belt, as well as the improvements on some rural midland lines—but we are urging the Government to establish a nationwide tap-in, tap-out ticketing system, which would be simple, modern and fair. It is time to end the regional lottery that passengers face across our network. We also continue to campaign to reverse the cuts to the restoring your railway scheme, which was scrapped by the Chancellor in last year’s Budget. That scheme would have delivered genuine social, economic and environmental benefits to rural areas that are too frequently cut off from public transport. We want to see smaller rural stations reopened and a UK-wide Network Rail railcard introduced, making rail travel more affordable, tackling regional inequalities and simplifying the system for passengers.

[David Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is drawing to a close—and focusing on timetable changes, which are the subject of this debate.

[Tim Farron]

Well, even the best timetabling is meaningless, Mr Stuart, if you cannot make it to the platform to catch your train. The Government have effectively scrapped the mid-tier section of the Access for All scheme, which is meant to end the barriers to access for people with disabilities and mobility issues. If the mid-tier scheme is scrapped, only mainline train stations will ever be made access-friendly for disabled people, which is outrageous. I have an example in my constituency: the platform at Staveley station on the Lakes line, which passengers have to stagger up 41 steep steps to reach. I ask the Minister to reopen the mid-tier scheme, to support not just Staveley but all rural stations.

Rural communities deserve a railway system that recognises them as equal partners in our national network, not an afterthought. The solutions are not beyond us. With the right priorities, the Government could transform the experience of passengers right across the country. We call for a nationwide tap-in, tap-out system to extend the planned best price guarantee across all digital and physical sales channels, to ensure that passengers are offered the most cost-effective ticket available. We call for electrification as standard for new line. We call for ambitious targets to expand battery and hydrogen technology, where appropriate, including for freight. The Government should also grab the low-hanging fruit and invest in passing loops, such as the one proposed for the Lakes line. That would be a relatively inexpensive way to double capacity on so many of our rural lines—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

And on timetable changes?

[Tim Farron]

And to ensure safe and reliable onward travel, Mr Stuart.

The reality is that when someone’s train comes in, if they cannot get to their next destination they are utterly snookered. That is particularly the case in rural areas where stations are unstaffed. At night, that often creates not only inconvenience, but a lack of safety, particularly at this time of year, particularly with late-night services curtailed and particularly for those who are travelling on their own. I will finish by simply saying that railways should work for all, urban and rural alike.

M6: Junction 38

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a great privilege to secure a debate on a matter that is causing immense anxiety across Westmorland and beyond. National Highways is planning to close and replace seven bridges that carry the M6 motorway over the Lune gorge in Cumbria. Those S-joint bridges are reaching the end of their lifespan and we recognise that this work has to be done.

The wider Lune gorge project proposes bridge replacements, overnight closures, weekend shutdowns and contraflow systems operating at sometimes as little as 30 mph. Crucially, the plan also entails the closure of the southbound junction at Tebay for 18 months, followed by the closure of the northbound junction for a subsequent 18 months. We argue that the junction 38 closures are not necessary, that there are clear alternatives such as temporary slip roads, and that insufficient attention has been paid to those alternatives. All the while, National Highways intends to keep heavy traffic moving through rural diversion routes and has, astonishingly, not produced a full impact assessment for the project—no assessment of the impact on the road network and no assessment of the impact on the wider community.

I do not think it is just parochial hyperbole when I say that the Lune gorge is without doubt the most spectacular and beautiful stretch of the UK’s motorway network, so I suspect that when the Department for Transport and National Highways looked at that stretch of the M6 while weighing up the project in its early days, they were struck more by the scenery and far less by the very significant population that depends on junction 38 and therefore did not give them very much serious consideration at all. Local communities rely on junction 38 for access to work, school, health services, business and the operation of the local economy.

The current plan will devastate local businesses—whose model is often completely reliant on proximity to the M6 and the junctions north and south—effectively isolating the community from the motorway for three years within a wider programme of four to six years of ongoing disruption. It also puts the safety of my constituents at risk, given that emergency services’ access to our communities will be severely curtailed for years on end. I recently spent time with our wonderful ambulance crews, who were keen that I should emphasise this point especially.

The impact on our communities will be enormous. The key effects are first and foremost on the village of Tebay itself, but there will also be an impact on a much wider area. Seven bridges carry the M6 itself, and they need replacing—I get that. The eighth bridge, across the M6, which also requires replacement, carries the A685 connecting Tebay with Kendal, 12 miles away, and is the only remaining link between the two when the M6 junction is closed. As a community, we campaigned hard to persuade National Highways not to close this bridge at the same time as the other seven, and we are grateful that National Highways has changed its mind on this point. I thank everyone who campaigned hard with us to achieve this success, which means that Tebay, Orton, Ravenstonedale, Kirkby Stephen and other villages will now at least have one connecting road to Kendal; otherwise, residents taking their children to school, and commuters, would have faced an additional 250 miles a week for an 18-month period.

Having said that, the A685 is a winding, narrow, single carriageway running for 12 miles from Tebay to Kendal, and for 18 months, all local traffic will be dependent on it, meaning a huge increase in traffic going through Tebay, Grayrigg and Kendal in particular. My first ask of the Minister is to ensure that this traffic is managed along the whole of this route and that the A685 Lawtland House bridge is strengthened and kept safe through this time, when this already weakened bridge will be facing massively increased usage, carrying an enormous volume of traffic displaced from the M6. The towns of Kirkby Stephen and Kendal are already at capacity and breaking point when it comes to traffic management and cannot withstand a motorway’s worth of displaced traffic; they cannot withstand it at all, but they certainly cannot withstand it regularly and for years on end.

Westmorland and Furness council is set to lose £39 million a year due to the new, ironically-titled fairer funding 2.0 settlement—a staggering 13% cut to its budget. It will therefore not have the funds to expand traffic management in consideration of the volume of traffic to keep those roads safe and flowing securely. Incidentally, this is a financial settlement that puts at risk the council’s crucial investment in the town of Barrow, which is critical to the UK’s defence capability, including our nuclear deterrent. I would be grateful if the Minister took this matter up separately with his colleagues the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Housing, Communities and Local Government. This cut would be a colossal strategic own goal for the Government—one they would rightly get the blame for—but there is still time to reverse it.

For this debate, though, the key point I want the Minister to focus on is that the closure of junction 38 southbound and then northbound, for three years in total, will be catastrophic for our communities. It can and must be avoided.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

It is more than that, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is about the main thoroughfare for lorries and traffic going to Stranraer and then to Larne. It is about that road and that junction. [Laughter.] No, it is a fact. I have talked to those who transport agrifood goods from Northern Ireland to the north of England and Scotland and back again. This debate is wide; its subject will impact not just the local area, but all the businesses in Northern Ireland that need lorries to bring their food in and take their food out. The agrifood sector will be impacted greatly.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman is a world-standard crowbar applier in this place, but that was not a crowbar—that was very relevant. England’s connectivity with Ireland via Stranraer is utterly affected by what is happening at junction 38. He is absolutely on the money, and I am very grateful for his point.

We must avoid the closures of these junctions. Let us start with one group who are mentioned regularly and helped rarely: at a time when they are already facing so many threats and pressures, the closures will be a logistical nightmare for our farmers, who will face rising fuel costs, some land being made inaccessible to them, and threats to animal welfare as they have to make more arduous journeys throughout this three-year period.

Secondly, given the Government’s priority of seeking economic growth, the junction closures are also a huge risk to our multibillion-pound tourism economy. Tailbacks north and south and the junction closures will mean that some of the 20 million visitors we have each year will vote with their feet, putting many of the 60,000 hospitality and tourism jobs in our county at risk, and further damaging the UK’s fiscal position.

Local businesses will be hit by the closures, including—I do not think this is parochial hyperbole either—Britain’s finest service station, Westmorland services at Tebay—

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Hear, hear.

[Tim Farron]

Thank you. There will be an estimated cost to the service station alone of £1 million in damage if the junction is closed. Dozens of other businesses will also be affected, with millions of pounds of lost revenue, increased costs and the potential loss of hundreds of jobs.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there will be a huge national impact on the haulage industry. Most lorry companies use junction 38 as their halfway point on the route to Scotland and the ferry ports serving Ireland. With the closure this coming January of the M6 at Clifton—at the top end of my constituency near junction 40—heavy goods vehicle drivers coming from Scotland and the ports connecting us to Ireland will be diverted from Penrith, across the A66 to Scotch Corner, down the A1(M), and across the M62 to rejoin the M6 near Warrington. That is a colossal detour, with horrendous costs in fuel and journey times—and that is only for a few weekends at the beginning of next year. The Lune gorge plan is to run for four to six years, not a few weekends. The work will have an enormous negative economic impact for the whole country. The consequences have clearly not been fully thought through.

Given that we know some of the impacts of the closures, we have asked National Highways for sight of its impact assessment. To my utter astonishment, it has not conducted one. The Minister can blame previous Conservative Ministers for that failure if he wishes, but he only gets to do that if he puts it right immediately this evening. Where is the economic impact assessment? Where is a credible traffic management plan?

With help from local residents, businesses and farmer groups, we did our own survey of the impact and calculated that the damage just to that relatively small section of the local community who live in the villages closest to junction 38 would be upwards of £10 million over three years. The real impact would be much wider, of course, and therefore the cost would be much, much higher.

The closure of junction 38 would also mean greater pressures on junction 37 to the south and junction 39 to the north, both of which are dangerous hammerhead junctions. Junction 37 has seen three tragic fatalities and many other accidents in the last 18 months alone, yet National Highways’ current plan—such as it is—is to send tens of thousands of vehicles down to junction 37, or up to the similarly designed junction 39. Those junctions are to be used as crude roundabouts by extremely heavy vehicles in utterly unreasonable volumes. Again, this underlines the failure to conduct a meaningful impact assessment or present any kind of credible traffic management plan.

The crucial problem that I want the Minister to focus on is the closure of junction 38 southbound for 18 months and then northbound for 18 months. It is completely unacceptable. Let’s face it—National Highways would have never even considered it in a more urban part of the network. I reiterate that we are not against the works taking place. We know that the bridges need to be replaced, but there are clearly alternatives to lengthy closures of junction 38, yet those alternatives have not been seriously considered or properly investigated.

I have a high regard for so many of the people I work with from National Highways, but from the beginning of this project there has been a failure to consider the community and the Cumbrian economy. Now that National Highways is being called to account and asked serious questions, it seems as though excuses are being made rather than solutions being explored.

Local businesses commissioned the well-respected motorway highways consultants BWB, which produced a detailed feasibility study confirming that temporary slip roads are absolutely possible—indeed, they are straightforward if the order of bridge removals is slightly rearranged. National Highways rejected this proposal with, at best, a cursory assessment, and it has provided no credible reasons for doing so.

On behalf of my communities in Westmorland, my first ask is that the Minister looks at the proposals himself, takes independent expert advice from his officials, and at the same time instructs National Highways to properly, formally consider the temporary slip roads—to make certain that these very credible plans are properly evaluated. Meanwhile, as the works proceed, many full motorway closures are planned, and the apparent plan is to route the entire M6 load through the narrow streets of Kendal and Kirkby Stephen. This is ludicrous and unsustainable, and it will take ministerial intervention to put right.

The second ask therefore relates to the Kendal relief road, otherwise known as the northern access route. In 2023 the previous Government pledged £460 million for 21 “smaller road schemes” across the north, including potentially a short new road linking the A591 Windermere Road to the A6 Shap Road just north of our thriving but often congested main town of Kendal, but in July the Department for Transport announced that the scheme’s future had been placed under review, with a final decision set to be announced by the end of the year. Given the disruption from the M6 closures already this year, the case for that road is stronger than ever. Can that project be brought forward so that it can be done before the M6 Lune gorge project happens?

The third ask is for help to be provided to solve the congestion that M6 and A66 closures have on the beautiful town of Kirkby Stephen. The provision of new, additional off-road parking for residents on South Road in Kirkby Stephen, along with sensible highways modifications, would mostly solve the problems there too. Will the Minister please instruct his officials to take action on that point before the work on the Lune gorge bridges causes repeated chaos to the town?

Fourthly, earlier this year the Government gave the green light for the A66 dualling after our lengthy campaign, and I am grateful to them for that. The plan includes an underpass close to the M6 junction 40 underneath the notoriously busy Kemplay Bank roundabout at Penrith. It is vital that the work is sequenced before the M6 closures so as to avoid crippling congestion around Penrith and to alleviate the devastating impact of running those projects at the same time. The solutions are here—experts have done the work and local businesses have provided the evidence—yet National Highways has not meaningfully considered the very options that would prevent economic and social disaster for our communities.

My final ask of the Minister tonight is this: will he meet me, along with representatives of the local community, local businesses and their skilled highways consultants, to discuss the temporary slip road proposals and the wider sequencing of these works? If he can visit the Westmorland site in person, we would welcome that hugely, and that would help him to see at first hand the issues that our local communities are facing. But time is of the essence, so we will gladly meet him in London if that can happen more speedily. It is essential that he understands for himself the profound and unnecessary impact that the project will have on Kendal, Burneside, Grayrigg, Tebay, Orton, Ravenstonedale and Kirkby Stephen, and on the wider economy of the Lake district, the dales, Cumbria as a whole and the UK’s haulage industry. The M6 bridge work must be done to keep us safe for generations to come, but it is wrong for it to be done in ways that ignore the catastrophic impact on our residents, communities and businesses in Westmorland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing this debate on the M6 Lune gorge project and his passionate advocacy on behalf of his constituents. Our strategic road network is one of the nation’s most vital pieces of infrastructure, with our motorways and major A roads forming the backbone of connectivity across England. The network links our towns and cities, ports and airports, and it is relied upon by millions of people and businesses every single day. The Government remain firmly committed to its resilience, renewal and replacement, with nearly £1.3 billion allocated for capital renewals in 2025-26.

I note the hon. Gentleman’s commitment not only in securing the debate but through his wider engagement with National Highways and the Government on this matter. He is a strong advocate for his constituents, businesses and local road users. While recognising the need for the M6 Lune gorge scheme, he has campaigned extensively to minimise the impact on his constituency. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to address the M6 Lune gorge project and the concerns raised regarding traffic management, and in particular the option of providing temporary slip roads.

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government, working closely with National Highways, fully recognise the scale and significance of the project. We understand the profound impact that transport infrastructure has on local communities, and not just in terms of connectivity but in safeguarding economic growth and quality of life. That is why we are committed to delivering a solution that is both robust and responsive to the needs of those it serves.

The M6 is a key corridor on our strategic road network and the main north-south transport axis. Early intervention is therefore essential to ensure those structures remain safe, resilient and in service. The M6 Lune gorge project is a significant and complex renewal scheme on the strategic road network. It is located within the gorge of the River Lune in Cumbria, between the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales national parks. Its purpose is to enable the vital replacement of bridge decks along a 10 km stretch of the M6 from Castle Howe bridge, adjacent to junction 38, to High Gill bridge, north of junction 37. The scheme involves eight similarly constructed structures, each now at, or approaching, the end of its operational life. Over time, these bridges have suffered significant deterioration, driven by increased traffic volumes, heavier vehicles and the growing impacts of climate change.

Construction on this project is scheduled to commence in the spring of 2027. During this period, road closures will be necessary, including the consecutive closure of both the southbound and northbound carriageways at junction 38, with diversion routes in place for road users throughout to maintain connectivity.

Safety remains National Highways’ foremost priority. To protect both the workforce and road users, there will be occasions when the full closure of the junction is unavoidable. These closures will be scheduled during weekends and overnight periods, when traffic is lighter, in order to minimise disruption. As construction approaches in spring 2027, National Highways will finalise these plans and provide clear, timely communication to ensure that road users and local communities are fully informed, to enable them to plan their journeys. The Government and National Highways remain firmly committed to engaging with local communities, to listen to the concerns and to mitigate disruption wherever possible. Following feedback from the local community, National Highways announced in September 2025 the deferral of works on Lawtland House bridge to provide an additional route of access for residents of Tebay while essential works are undertaken at junction 38.

During the initial design stages of the project prior to May 2024, National Highways considered and assessed the opportunity of using temporary slip roads. At that time, this approach was not considered feasible due to spatial constraints, value for money considerations, the need for significant lane and speed restrictions and the likelihood of a costly extension to the overall construction period.

[Tim Farron]

If possible, I would be grateful to have sight of the workings showing National Highways’ consideration of the slip roads, and what drawings and designs it did and then discarded. I have not heard of this to this date, and I am not convinced that it did that at all.

[Simon Lightwood]

I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman will continue his engagement with National Highways, and I am sure that they can have that conversation together.

As I said, during the initial design stages of the project, prior to May 2024, National Highways considered and assessed the opportunity of those slip roads. However, following further engagement by National Highways with local communities, additional proposals for temporary slip roads were submitted by stakeholders in September and October 2025. While these broadly reflected options previously deemed unfeasible, further information was provided by an independently commissioned engineering consultancy company. National Highways has committed to a detailed feasibility review of the information produced by that consultancy company. The review is under way and will consider the impact on road users and the costs of the scheme, and with consideration of local communities. The review is expected to conclude by January 2026 and National Highways has committed to provide the outcome of this work by the end of January. I look forward to receiving the report, alongside the hon. Member and other stakeholders.

The hon. Member mentioned traffic impact assessments. National Highways understands the impact this work will have on the region and has undertaken an assessment of the impact on traffic flows of the proposed traffic management arrangements. In line with standard practice, National Highways has prepared and shared a traffic management strategy with stakeholders, which will be refined into detailed plans as we approach construction in spring 2027.

I fully understand the hon. Member’s concerns regarding the impact of road closures during the construction of this project. These are legitimate and important considerations for local communities and road users alike. National Highways has no intention of inconveniencing road users, but it accepts that, due to the nature and scale of this type of work, especially where there is a need for road closures, some level of disruption is unavoidable. However, let me assure him that National Highways is committed to carefully reviewing the proposals submitted for temporary slip roads.

The M6 Lune gorge project represents an essential renewal of the strategic road network—a critical transport corridor in our country. The scheme is not simply about replacing infrastructure; it is about safeguarding connectivity, supporting economic growth and ensuring the safety and resilience of a route that serves thousands of road users every day. Without sustained and strategic investment, the strategic road network risks deterioration, which would constrain economic growth, erode productivity and lead to significantly higher long-term costs. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that investing in the maintenance and renewal of our road network ultimately benefits the whole community.

This Government, working in close partnership with National Highways, are fully committed to delivering this project in a way that minimises disruption to road users and local communities. That is why every effort is being made to plan carefully, communicate clearly and implement measures that reduce inconvenience wherever possible.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter for debate and for his continued advocacy on behalf of his constituency. I welcome ongoing engagement with him following National Highways’ review of the additional slip road proposals, and as this important project progresses to see what we can achieve to provide a positive outcome for road users and all stakeholders, including his constituents.

[Tim Farron]

I feel that the Minister is about to conclude, so I just want to press him on the meeting with myself and the local community. Is he willing to do that? He is welcome to come to Westmorland, but we would happily come down to see him here.

[Simon Lightwood]

As I mentioned, I think it would be a good idea to wait until January to understand the outcome of the assessment that National Highways is undertaking on the slip road proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

West Coast Main Line

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Connor Naismith]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be in the business of improving services for our constituents, so we must, wherever possible, ensure that we protect direct services in whatever plans we bring forward in the future.

The challenge is clear, because the west coast main line is statistically the least reliable railway in Britain, with fewer than 50% of the trains running on time—a situation that will only get worse.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

rose—

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

rose—

[Connor Naismith]

I am spoilt for choice, but I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman first.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. On reliability, I understand that there are 2,639 railway stations in the United Kingdom. The fifth least reliable of them is Oxenholme and the third least reliable is Penrith. Obviously, they have one thing in common, apart from serving my constituency, which is that they are both north of Preston. The hon. Gentleman might know that Avanti has a habit whereby if there is anything wrong with the line north of Preston, everything stops at Preston, even if the issue is in Scotland. Does he agree that that is wrong? Does he also agree that although Avanti should rightly be held to account for making such decisions, it is not all Avanti’s fault, because it is often down to the fact that the rail track itself is not properly maintained and there has not been enough investment in it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that should also be a priority for the Government?

[Connor Naismith]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I do not often have to travel north to his constituency on the railway, but I have heard from several colleagues about the particular issues on that part of the line. He is absolutely right that although we should hold the operators to account, Network Rail needs to address key infrastructure issues.

Road and Rail Projects

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that I am in frequent discussions with the Mayor for the Liverpool city region, Steve Rotheram, as well as the Mayor for Greater Manchester. I am aware of the proposed Liverpool Gateway station in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I hope to be able to say more on Northern Powerhouse Rail in the coming weeks.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

A few weeks ago I was in Eamont Bridge and met a retired police officer, who shared with me his experiences of visiting road traffic accidents and, indeed, of having to break the news of the death of loved ones to countless people over his career. He begged me to carry on campaigning for the upgrade to the A66. On his behalf, and on behalf of the thousands of people who are part of the campaign to see that upgrade happen, I thank the Secretary of State for committing the money to do that today. However, we have wasted a year while this has been under deliberation. Will she now give an updated timescale, so that we can get on with the work as soon as possible in order to keep my constituents safe and to boost the economy of the north of England?

[Heidi Alexander]

As I said in response to a previous question, we will set out the delivery timetable for all the schemes that we are announcing today when we produce the next roads investment strategy. We will produce a draft of that later this year, and the final version will be published by March.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Tim Farron Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he gives me the opportunity to place on record my thanks to Andrew Wickham. I have the privilege of representing the constituency of Swindon South, and he ran Swindon’s Bus Company. He was the epitome of professionalism and kindness to me—not only as a Member of a Parliament, but when I was a candidate—and I pass on my condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues.

The right hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the importance of companion travel for individuals with disabilities. He will know that the decision to add extras to the English national concessionary fare scheme is taken by local authorities.

I was talking about our desire to make the franchising system simpler. Of course, the model will not work everywhere, which is why this Bill also strengthens enhanced partnerships and removes the ideological ban on establishing new local authority bus companies. Furthermore, by giving local authorities the power to design and pay bus operator grants in their area, the Bill gives greater protections for socially necessary local services, securing the lifeline routes that keep communities connected.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

In our communities we have nearly full employment, but a lot of people are on extremely low wages. Before the bus fare cap came in, the bus fare from Kendal to Ambleside was the second highest in the entire country, costing people a quarter of their salary to get to work. As the Secretary of State makes sure that devolution happens and that franchising is done in a way that is fit for purpose in each different area, will she ensure that she does not abdicate her responsibility to fully fund the bus fare cap, so that people like my constituents can actually afford to get to work?

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a spending review under way, but I can confirm that I fully appreciate the importance of having an affordable and accessible bus route. He will be aware that zero funding was allocated to fund the bus fare cap beyond the end of last year, and this Government stepped in with our commitment to the £3 fare. Although it applies to only one in six journeys—because a number of people who travel regularly will use a travelcard for a week or a month—I am aware of the importance that his constituents and others attach to the cap.

Transport Connectivity: North-west England

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your guidance this morning, Dr Murrison. It is also an honour to follow the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), who admirably led this debate, as well as many other colleagues from across the north-west who have made excellent contributions on behalf of both their constituencies and the north-west as a whole, which is of course the greatest region on planet Earth. It is home to the greatest towns and cities, and indeed the greatest and most beautiful landscape that we have to offer.

The north-west is the birthplace of the industrial revolution, yet it is appalling that our region performs 6.8% below the national average on productivity. Indeed, the only regions with productivity above the national average are London and the south-east. Over the last 60 or 70 years, we have become a steadily unipolar country, and the north-west, like lots of other parts of the UK, has become undermined. We saw levelling up from the last Government, which had some admirable aspects, but essentially—dare I say—it felt like a whole load of pork barrel with no strategy. Let us hope that we can have some strategy.

The cancellation of HS2 summed up that lack of strategy. I completely agree with the hon. Members for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who is my neighbour; they talked about HS2 being about capacity and not speed. If we had a proper HS2 line to the north-west that mirrored and upgraded the west coast main line, which is the most congested rail line in western Europe, that would give us the opportunity to reopen many stations along the existing main line— I will throw out Tebay, Shap and Milnthorpe, just to name three. We must also think about how important it is for the north-west to relate to not just London but other parts of the north of England. East-west connectivity is crucial. What we used to call High Speed 3, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, is hugely significant, and we want to see and hear more about it.

As an MP in Cumbria, I am bound to say that often, when we talk about the north-west, we seem to stop thinking about anything that exists north of junction 32 —I can confirm that it does exist. In particular, I would love the Minister to focus on the A66, which is a hugely important road for connectivity that links the A1(M) and the M6, so it connects the ports in the east and the west of this country. In a parallel universe, it would have been a motorway. However, for 12 miles it is a single carriageway, where there are hideous numbers of deaths that are always concentrated in that small section.

I urge the Minister and his colleagues to say yes to the A66 upgrade as soon as possible. Everybody in my neck of the woods is on tenterhooks waiting to hear. Likewise, there is work that has to be done on the M6 near junction 38. While it is massively important to the whole motorway network in the north, the people of Tebay must not be isolated during that work, and I ask the Minister to pay special attention to the so far inadequate levels of mitigation from National Highways, as those eight bridges have to be replaced in the coming years.

It is also important to talk about trains, and to think about what train services are like across the whole of the north-west. I want to highlight the situation with Avanti, and its failure to serve the northern half of the north-west adequately. It is worth bearing in mind that rail services on the west coast managed to meet their timetable obligations only 43.5% of the time, and last year, more than one in 20 services were cancelled. Any of us who live north of Preston know that any problem in the borders of Scotland or Glasgow means a train cancelled at Preston. Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle and Lockerbie are often completely overlooked, and that must stop.

I also want the Minister to think very carefully about what can be done to expand existing railway lines to make better use of them. The most visited destination in the United Kingdom outside London is the Lake district, yet we have a single railway line that goes from the main line to Windermere. It is possible, quite cheaply, to double capacity by having a passing loop at Burneside, and I would love the Minister to look at that possibility and see whether he agrees to it.

[Graham Stringer]

In the context of the north-west, we are all friends on this matter. The hon. Member probably does not know, but a few years ago the Transport Committee did a study into north-west trains and found that train schedules in the north-west—not when the trains actually run—were slower when there was a Liberal Prime Minister. Even more surprisingly, it was not Campbell-Bannerman; it was Gladstone.

[Tim Farron]

May I point out that there were many more railway lines then, and therefore more trains to be slow? It was also mostly pre-electricity—so there we go. I am grateful for the hon. Member’s point.

The industrial capability of the west coast of Cumbria—not in my constituency—is significant to the economy of the whole country, and includes BAE at Barrow and Sellafield on the west coast. The railway line that serves them—the Furness line—saw a derailment a year ago and a flooding-related near disaster just a few weeks ago. We need to pay special attention to keeping the Furness line open, upgrading it and electrifying it if possible. I also want to make a case, on behalf of all my Cumbrian colleagues, for the Cumbria coastal line, which needs significant investment.

It is great to hear colleagues from metropolitan parts of the north-west talk about keeping the £2 bus fare cap, but for many of us in areas that are far less well funded, and where devolution has not really happened, such as Cumbria, we are stuck with the £3 cap, and we are worried about that being got rid of altogether. Before the cap came in, the most expensive bus journey in the United Kingdom was Kendal to Ambleside, which cost more than an hour’s wage for somebody working in the hospitality sector. Will the Minister confirm that the £3 cap will not be raised or got rid of any time soon?

It is my great privilege to represent a very rural area, but that means that even when the £3 cap exists, it is of no good whatsoever. It does a fat lot of good if we do not have any buses. Giving our local authority, Westmorland and Furness council, the ability to run its own buses is key to meeting the needs of many rural communities. I am honoured to chair an outfit called Cumbria Better Connected, to which all these issues are regularly fed in. One of the most important issues is connectivity and integration between bus and rail, but it is no—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister, Jerome Mayhew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way.

We acknowledge that rates of step-free access remain low across Great Britain, which is why the Access for All programme is working to address that. In the Greater Manchester area—

[Tim Farron]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way, because I have a lot of points to make, but I am happy to have a conversation with Members afterwards. In the Greater Manchester area, about 50% of stations already have step-free access, approximately double the national average. We remain committed to improving the accessibility of the railways and recognise the valuable social and economic benefits that that brings to communities. However, the programme continues to be heavily oversubscribed, so we welcome opportunities for external funding to improve the accessibility of the network.

The objective of the Treasury’s review of the Green Book is to understand whether it is being used in a way that ensures fair, objective and transparent appraisals of proposals outside London and the south-east of England. DFT officials are working closely with the Treasury on that review and will take forward any relevant actions following its conclusion.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton very much for raising this important issue. I hope that I have been able to reassure her that the Government recognise the importance of transport connectivity across the north-west. That is why we are investing and that is why we are devolving to local leaders. I look forward to continuing to work with her and other hon. Members on this key issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I disagree slightly with the hon. Gentleman, because I think a £500 million uplift is proper funding—it represents, on average, a 40% increase, and it takes the overall amount of funding up to £1.8 billion. However, I do agree with his substantive point. Some of this money should be used for proactive preventative road resurfacing, because in some cases that will provide the best value for money for the taxpayer.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Hundreds of local authority roads across the country include half-joint bridges built in the 1960s and 1970s that are now dangerously unsafe. They include the Brigsteer Road and Underbarrow Road bridges leading out of Kendal, which have been closed for the last six months, causing great inconvenience to the local community. They were built with Government funding 50 or 60 years ago, but local councils are unable to replace them with the funds available to them now. Will the Secretary of State meet representatives of Westmorland and Furness council as a matter of urgency, so that the bridges can be reopened and our communities can be reconnected quickly?

[Heidi Alexander]

I will ask my colleague the Minister for the Future of Roads to have that meeting with the council. However, the additional money that we have provided, and the individual allocations that were announced before Christmas, can be used not just for road maintenance, but for bridges and pavements.

Rail Performance

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

It was extraordinarily frustrating to see the news of the obscene amounts of money spent on that structure to do with HS2. That happened under HS2’s previous leadership. We are resolving this by bringing in Mark Wild imminently to lead the organisation, and we are also resolving issues around cost control and governance through James Stewart’s governance review of HS2. These things happened under the previous Government, and fortunately the electorate resolved that issue for us on 4 July.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

After a weekend of cancellations at Windermere, Oxenholme and elsewhere, will the Secretary of State have a word with Northern Rail, to remind it that it is meant to run a rail service on a Sunday? Will she also speak to Avanti —many hon. Members may agree with me on this and have the same experience—because services from London Euston to Glasgow Central are habitually stopped at Preston, even when the track is clear all the way to the Scottish border and beyond? It harms my constituents at Oxenholme, and those in Penrith, Lancaster and Carlisle.

[Louise Haigh]

I have routine conversations with Northern Rail, as the hon. Gentleman would imagine. The most recent was on Thursday. We facilitated a new rest day working agreement with it, which has significantly reduced driver cancellations, but there is an outstanding issue with conductors; there is a very similar situation with Great Western. In parts of Northern Rail, particularly in the north-west, Sundays are not included in the working week. That has led to an unacceptable amount of cancellations, which we are working to resolve. I will raise the issue of stopping at Preston with Avanti separately.

Railway Stations in Cumbria: Staffing Changes

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered staffing of railway stations in Cumbria.

It is an absolute privilege to serve under your guidance in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. The impact of the proposed staffing changes in Cumbria, including the loss of ticket offices, will be immense and entirely negative. With the conclusion of the consultation last month, those closures may be imminent, but the Government have the power to prevent them. That is why I am so pleased and grateful to have secured this debate at this crucial time.

I have a high regard for the Minister personally, and I am here to ask him to intervene directly to save our ticket offices in Cumbria and to prevent the removal of station staff. I draw his attention to the petition to stop the closures in Cumbria, which has been signed by more than 3,000 people. I am determined that our communities should be able to access our stations and be safe at them. Those stations should have knowledgeable professionals on hand to answer the questions we all have when we are rail users, and I want to ensure that the quality of rail travel is not further diminished because of these foolish and backward-looking proposals.

In South Lakeland and Eden alone, we face the closure of Avanti’s ticket offices at the mainline west coast stations at Penrith and Oxenholme. Penrith is set to have no ticket office and to have staff available for ticketing support from 9 am, rather than from 5.30 am. At Oxenholme station, it is a similar story: the ticket office is to close and staff are set to be on hand from 8 am rather than 5.45 am. We face the removal of ticket offices and massively reduced staffing at the Northern Rail-run stations at Appleby, Windermere, Grange-over-Sands and Ulverston.

Ulverston station, where mobility scooter users and people in wheelchairs are dependent on staff to assist them across the tracks to platform 3, will be staffed for just two hours a day, from 11 am to 1 pm, and not at all on Sundays. Grange-over-Sands station, situated in a town with a disproportionately older population, will also be staffed for just two hours a day, from 11.30 am to 1.30 pm, and not at all on Sundays. Appleby station, which has direct connections to Leeds, Carlisle and the Yorkshire Dales national park, will be staffed for just four hours a day, from 9 am to 1 pm, and not at all on Sundays. Windermere station, in the heart of the Lake district—Britain’s biggest visitor destination after London—will be staffed for just three and a half hours a day, from 10 am to 1.30 pm, and, again, not at all on Sundays.

The staff who will be present for those brief periods are to be called “journey makers”, but they will not be able to sell anyone a ticket directly. They are there only to give people guidance on how to use the ticket machines on the platform, many of which do not take cash, by the way—a feature that merely adds to the heap of barriers to access that the changes entail.

For the mainline stations at Oxenholme and Penrith, the proposals mean a huge reduction in the quality and availability of support, but for the branch line stations at Appleby, Windermere, Grange-over-Sands and Ulverston, the proposals are devastating. They effectively amount to the de-staffing of those stations, to the enormous detriment of rail users and the wider community. Unstaffed stations are unsafe stations, especially for solo travellers and even more so for women.

Unstaffed stations are inaccessible stations, too. I met William in Appleby a couple of weeks ago. He is visually impaired and cannot use the ticket machine at the station. To travel, he needs a staffed ticket office. If the changes go through, he will be able to use his local station only on the rare occasions that the “journey maker” happens to be present. Last month, I met volunteers at Sight Advice South Lakes in Kendal, most of whom have visual impairments. They told me the same story as William: de-staffed stations are, for them, unusable stations.

At Grange-over-Sands, a town with a larger, older population where the station really is a lifeline for hundreds of people, the de-staffing of the station will render it inaccessible to many. Lillian and Mohammed from Levens village, who use the station regularly, tell me that because of Mohammed’s disability—he is a wheelchair user—they need a staffed station to help with such things as the ramp to get him on and off the train.

At Ulverston, people with mobility issues need to use the crossing across the tracks to get to platform 3. They can do that only when a member of staff is present, yet the plan is for that station to be staffed for just two hours a day and not at all on Sundays. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell)—my constituency neighbour—and the disability access campaigner Tony Jennings have also rightly brought the matter to the Minister’s attention.

It is my privilege to chair the public transport group Cumbria Better Connected, and in that role I joined the hon. Member, Cumbria Tourism, Cumbria local enterprise partnership, Morecambe Bay Partnership, the RMT, Ulverston business improvement district, local rail users groups and local Westmorland and Furness councillors in sending a letter to the Secretary of State this summer outlining our objections to the plans that the rail companies have put on the table. The Minister replied:

“No currently staffed station should be unstaffed as a result of industry changes, and operators should ensure that staff are well located to meet passenger needs in future. This includes ensuring that staff are available to assist those who need additional support or do not wish to use digital tickets.”

The Minister knows that the proposals to de-staff our branch line stations for at least 80% of the time are not compliant with his pledge in that letter, so he surely cannot permit the proposals to happen.

Further to that, in a debate on ticket office closures in Westminster Hall on 13 September, the Minister stated:

“I do not expect a material reduction in the number of hours where ticketing expertise is available at stations…it is important to note that the volume of hours is similar to what we currently have.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 346WH.]

But that is not the case for the proposals at Oxenholme or Penrith, and it is especially not the case at Grange, Windermere, Appleby or Ulverston. Given that all the train companies are proposing job losses—2,300 job losses in all—as a result of their ticket office closure plans nationwide, it is surely not possible for the volume of staffing hours to be even remotely similar to what we have now, and certainly the consultation does not indicate that that is the intention. Did the Minister mean what he said in this place a month ago? If so, would I be right in assuming that he plans to block the proposals, and that in fact there will not be the job losses proposed by the rail operators?

It seems obvious to me, and I assume it is obvious to the Minister, that the proposals for our stations in Cumbria completely go against his criteria. How on earth can passengers’ needs be met when Appleby station will be staffed for just four hours a day, Windermere for just three and a half hours, Ulverston and Grange stations for a mere two hours each, and none of them staffed at all on Sundays? The loss of ticket offices and our excellent ticket office staff would be a desperate step backwards, and an incredibly foolish and short-sighted one.

The train operators justify their proposals to close ticket offices and de-staff stations by saying that only 12% of passengers book their tickets directly at the ticket office. That is misleading, because it is not the case at our stations. At Appleby, for instance, 39% of all travellers book their tickets at the station office. At Grange and Ulverston stations, more tickets were bought at booking offices than through the electronic machines for every one of the last three years. Even for those who arrive at the station with a ticket, many still have questions that need answering. I am at Oxenholme nearly every week, and the excellent, cheerful ticket office staff are always being asked for advice by rail users. Most arrive with their tickets, but they perhaps lack answers to key questions about their journeys, especially when there are delays and cancellations, as is almost always the case these days.

The proposals are also stupid from a management point of view, because they are enormously demoralising to the entire rail workforce, whether staff work on platforms, in ticket offices or on trains. Have industry bosses and the Minister not noticed the ongoing industrial relations dispute? What possessed them to think that now is the right moment to cleverly pour petrol on that fire by seeking to force through unnecessary changes that damage the industry and morale?

The impact on our economy will be significant, too. In Cumbria, we have 20 million visitors a year. As I have been collecting signatures for our petition to save the ticket offices, I have been talking to passengers at Oxenholme, Appleby, Grange-over-Sands and Windermere. One thing that struck me is that many of those who were keen to sign were tourists. Indeed, at Windermere, the very first four signatories were from Israel, Abu Dhabi, Switzerland and Pakistan. By the way, they all already had their ticket. They were all uncertain about connections, timings and delays and would all be left high and dry if Ministers permit the closures.

Our tourism economy employs 60,000 people in Cumbria. It is our biggest employer by far, generating £3.5 billion a year for our economy. It is unacceptable that our visitors should have their experience so badly damaged by the proposed decisions. Westmorland and Furness Council and the Lake District national park authority are striving to get visitors to come to the lakes but leave their cars at home to protect our world-class landscapes from pollution and congestion. It is not right that that vital work should be undone by a proposal that would downgrade the main railway station in the English Lake district. By the way, many of those who arrive in the lakes as tourists are international visitors who come to the UK via Manchester airport, where TransPennine Express is planning to halve the opening hours of the railway station ticket office. That is a cut in Manchester that would do damage to the economy of the lakes.

The closure of ticket offices at the mainline stations is equally a backward step. At Oxenholme and Penrith stations, staff will not be available for ticket sales or advice until after the first several trains of the day have been and gone. How can that be an improvement in service? The loss of the physical ticket offices is also a foolish thing. Having staff at a designated ticket office means that passengers always know precisely where they can find help and advice, rather than having to scour the platform to see whether they can find a shivering employee randomly stood in an unspecified location. Furthermore, has it occurred to the Minister that the screens in the ticket offices can play an important role? Sadly, staff sometimes find themselves on their own, confronted by agitated and occasionally potentially violent people. It is not right to force them to lose that important shield.

The Beeching cuts of the 1960s were a tragic, myopic error on a huge scale, causing lasting and largely irreparable damage to our transport infrastructure, our environment and our communities. The minds behind that colossal own goal concluded that the arrival of the shiny new motorways and mass private car ownership rendered many of our railways redundant; they were yesterday’s news or old hat. Yet, looking back, few decisions can count as being as destructive or as stupid as the Beeching cuts.

What lesson do we learn from that devastating mistake? It is surely this: that we must not be hasty to throw away the old just because something new has come along. Then, the old was the railways, and the new was the motorways. Today, the old is human beings and human interactions, and the new is technology that allows us to book tickets and manage our journeys online. The new technology is good and most of us use it, but to arrogantly assume that we are on the right side of history if we blot out the human infrastructure of our railways is to invite the same ridicule and derision in future that most of us feel today towards Beeching and the politicians who foolishly followed his recommendations.

In the debate in this Chamber on 13 September, the Minister said:

“I have no role in the consultation at this stage”.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 13 September 2023; Vol 737, c. 346WH.]

Throughout the process, the Government have tried to maintain that it is industry-led. But that is not really true, is it? Documents released via a freedom of information request confirm not only that the Government had to sign off each company’s proposal before it went for public consultation, but that they were advising the train companies what to do with their closed ticket offices afterwards and were encouraging them to consider renting them out for retail use—and all of that was before the public consultations were even launched.

The proposals to de-staff our stations and damage our railways are not some regrettable imposition by an alien force beyond the Minister’s control. They are proposals from rail operators who are answerable to him and the Secretary of State—proposals that he has the power to quash. If he thinks these damaging proposals are a good thing for Cumbria, the Conservatives must stand behind them and accept responsibility. If they think they are a bad thing, what is the point of them being in office if they will not do the right thing and stop them? If the Minister wanted to call a halt to this process, he could. If he wanted to and if the Prime Minister wanted to, he could save our ticket offices with the stroke of a pen. On behalf of the people of Cumbria, our excellent station staff and our millions of visitors, I call on him to do just that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us have a bit of balance, and try Tim Farron.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, how kind. It would be terrible—wouldn’t it?—if the Government were claiming to be putting more money into potholes, when in reality in the past two years alone, there has been a £534 million reduction in real-terms funding for highways. I am convinced that local election voters in two weeks’ time will make their decisions based on realities, rather than on bluster.

Here is another reality: Cumbria gets 20 million visitors a year, and we are delighted to receive every single one of them. But our highways are in a state, because we do not get a penny from the Government to compensate for any one of the cars that those 20 million people visit us in. Is it time that the Government gave a funding formula to Westmorland and Furness Council, and Cumberland Council, that takes account of the fact that our roads, and indeed our hospitals, doctors services and police services, are used by others, and not just by ourselves?

[Mr Holden]

As I pointed out in a previous answer, when it comes to councils repairing roads, it is about getting on with the job on the ground. Conservative councils repair on average twice as many potholes per council area as Lib Dem councils do. The recent Government announcement about ensuring that utility companies are properly held to account is also in the right direction. If Lib Dem-controlled councils are interested in potholes, have they implemented a lane rental scheme that enables them to get cash, like Surrey, Kent and West Sussex County Councils have done, all of which are Conservative controlled? There is nothing from the Lib Dems on that.