PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Rail Freight - 3 June 2026 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I will call Lisa Smart to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. If that has not been secured, you should not speak. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of rail freight in the transport network.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. Compared with many other aspects of the transport network, rail freight rarely gets the attention I feel it deserves, yet it can help us to achieve so much of what so many of us say we want for our communities, our economy and our planet. From cleaner air and less congested roads to building new homes and a more resilient economy, rail freight is not a niche industry concern but a national infrastructure priority.

The Tarmac site at Bredbury in my Hazel Grove constituency receives daily freight trains carrying construction materials from the Peak district, North Yorkshire and south Wales. I was lucky enough to be invited to visit last year and don my hi-vis. What struck me was how tangible the benefits were. I was joined by Huw Merriman from the Rail Freight Group and Chris Swan, among others, from the great team at the Tarmac facility. A single train delivery to that site can provide enough materials to build up to 30 new homes and, in doing so, removes around 60 HGV movements from the A6 and the surrounding residential streets. That is 60 fewer lorries on roads that my constituents use every day to get to work, school or the shops.

The north-west is one of the busiest regions in the country for rail freight. Aggregates move daily from Peak district quarries through my constituency and beyond. Container trains run on the west coast main line bound for Scotland, Trafford Park and Seaforth in Merseyside. Those flows matter not just to the industries that depend on them, but to every driver who would otherwise be sharing a road with the lorries that would replace them.

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I envy her region’s constructive approach. We unfortunately do not have any rail freight in Northern Ireland, and it is very disappointing, but there is a need to emphasise and build on the east-west relationship. We are all part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so it is really important. Does she agree that, when it comes to looking at rail transport links, maybe the Minister should cast an eye towards Northern Ireland? Maybe—just maybe—she might be able to encourage the Minister there to do something.

The hon. Gentleman has, in his customary way, championed the needs of his constituents and the whole of Northern Ireland. I agree that rail freight is a very good thing of which there should be more. I am very keen to hear what the Minister has to say.

We had a rail freight line going down to the docks in Falmouth, but it was closed about 20 years ago. I am trying to reopen it, and we are working with the docks and potential customers to do so. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is something that the Government and Great British Railways, when it is set up, should be looking to support?

I agree on the importance of rail freight infrastructure. It really matters that the lines are in place and able to be used. I will talk about capacity and the importance of having dedicated rail paths for freight. I do not know the line the hon. Lady mentions, but perhaps I can visit her beautiful part of the world on my summer holidays.

The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time. In Reading, which is in the same rail region as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), there is an excellent example of where co-ordination between track and train is already emerging in freight. It is offering great benefits to passengers and taking vehicles off the road, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned is happening in the north-west.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the positive impact that good rail freight infrastructure can have on passengers. We should not look at the two as separate entities; they work together and use some of the same infrastructure. More rail freight means fewer wagons on the road, so it is better for all passengers, whether in cars, wagons or on the railway.

As has been shown, this goes beyond my local area. Rail freight prevents 7 million HGV journeys every year across our nation, according to the Rail Freight Group. That means less wear on our roads, because HGVs cause disproportionately more damage to road surfaces than any other vehicle. The cost of that falls on all of us as taxpayers. It also means less congestion on already overstretched routes, resulting in cleaner air in the towns and villages that lorries would otherwise have passed through.

Rail freight can deliver real benefits to real communities, and we are still not using it nearly enough. According to independent research by Deloitte, rail freight currently contributes £2.5 billion in economic and social value to the country each year. Yet, according to the Rail Freight Group, the UK moves only about 7% of its freight by rail, which is less than half of the European average of 19%.

On continental freight, the hon. Member mentioned volumes coming from the European Union. In my constituency, we have so much traffic coming in and out of Eurotunnel that there is not the gauge capacity for trains to come all the way through, so they have to offload and reload. Does she agree that the Government should support the enhancement of that gauge capacity, so that trucks can come all the way through, increasing demand and capacity for the whole system?

I am grateful for the hon. and learned Member’s insight based on his local understanding, and I strongly agree. For the Government to look at the whole of our rail infrastructure, not just that sitting on these islands, would be good for our economy, our environment and how we relate to our European neighbours and partners. We are moving more goods than ever across the country but the share going by rail is barely shifting, and we are falling further behind our European neighbours.

My constituency has one of the busiest rail aggregate goods yards in the country, with about 300 trains delivering construction material each year. That replaces 14,000 long-distance lorries, which is 2.5 million HGV miles. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to do much more to support the rail freight industry to improve our environment, to reduce congestion and, above all, to build the homes we need?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The way he lays out the scale of the impact of rail freight on his constituency and the neighbouring area shows its importance. I will come on to a couple of suggestions for the Government that I hope will address some of his point.

Rail freight provides clear environmental benefits compared with the alternatives. Even when diesel-hauled, a freight train produces around 76% lower carbon emissions per tonne-kilometre than a lorry on the road. That figure improves dramatically with electrification, as electrically hauled freight cuts emissions further still, while also consuming far less track capacity because electric locomotives accelerate significantly better than diesel ones.

I have been supporting a project called Kernow Connect alongside Cornwall council, and it looks to advance freight capacity to Cornwall significantly. We have Falmouth, one of the deepest ports in the world, and fantastic resources such as critical minerals, but we do not have the infrastructure to take the freight to the rest of the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister could start thinking about such projects, which are potentially ready to go, and get some feasibility study money to see if they are viable so that we can have the freight revolution the country needs?

My hon. Friend gives yet another tourist advert for the beautiful area he represents. He is right that long-term thinking about investing in our infrastructure for our environment, our communities and our economy is good and sensible. That work with Kernow Connect sounds interesting and worth further exploration.

As we continue to push towards net zero, as we must, that gap matters enormously. Moving freight off the roads and on to rail should be a core part of our decarbonisation programme, but we face several barriers to improving our rail freight network, and I am keen to hear from the Minister about the Government’s plans to address them.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Rail freight moves everything from Tesco containers to Cornish clay on its way to Stoke through my constituency. I would like to raise the issue of the rail freight workforce, because drivers’ wages and employment conditions can be very variable in the sector. Will the hon. Lady join me in recognising the value of ASLEF’s “Rail Freight Future” campaign? It backs many of her calls and emphasises the need for proper sanitary, welfare and rest facilities for freight drivers.

I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises the question of those working in the rail freight industry. It is vital to all of us that those employed in the industry have safe and sanitary working conditions. We should applaud the work they do to keep the industry going.

In the UK, we have consistently prioritised passenger services, and freight is often squeezed around and between them. The fundamental problem is the speed differential. A freight train typically runs at 60 to 75 mph, a limit set in the 1960s and barely reviewed since, while inter-city passenger trains run at 100 to 125 mph. That gap consumes enormous amounts of capacity. The Netherlands recognised that problem and built the Betuweroute, a dedicated freight-only railway completed this century, running directly from the ports of Rotterdam into Germany and relieving pressure on the existing network. We have no equivalent.

The second barrier is electrification. Nearly all rail freight in the UK is diesel-hauled. That is partly because our electrification coverage is derisory but also because electricity costs have perversely led some freight operators to switch back from electric to diesel traction. The west coast main line north of Warrington has inadequate power supplies for the current level of traffic. That is another reason why a lot of freight, and indeed the new London-to-Stirling Lumo open-access passenger service, is diesel rather than electric. In relative terms, even though the costs are not that high, agreement from the Treasury would be needed, and as far as I understand has not yet been obtained. It makes no sense for diesel trains to run on electrified railways because of power supply constraints.

The third barrier is signalling. Modern digital in-cab signalling, also known as the European train control system, makes far better use of existing infrastructure by creating uniformity in how trains brake and accelerate. It is planned as part of the TransPennine route upgrade, but there is no clear roll-out plan more widely. Would the Minister confirm whether there are any additional plans to use that form of signalling in other parts of the train network?

Rail freight supports our supply chain resilience, as it reduces road damage by replacing HGVs that cause disproportionately more wear on road surfaces than any other vehicle, but it also reduces congestion and supports key industries such as house building, which receives key supply chain components through rail freight. The materials needed to deliver the homes this country needs can move by rail at scale in a way that road haulage simply cannot replicate without adding to the gridlock on roads running through my constituency like the A6, Bents Lane or Stockport Road.

The Lib Dems are committed to a national freight strategy. We want planning law to be changed so that new developments provide freight access to manufacturing and distribution facilities, building the infrastructure for a modal shift in the economy rather than trying to retrofit it later. For that strategy to work effectively, we also need a network that can accommodate rail freight. Freight operators need guaranteed access to train paths. They need capacity on the network to be actively planned and protected, not squeezed out incrementally as passenger demand grows.

The Railways Bill creates Great British Railways, providing it with a duty to reserve capacity for its own services. Without explicit protections for freight, there is a real risk that freight corridors will be eroded over time. As currently drafted, the Bill could dilute the regulatory oversight of network capacity allocation in ways that could entrench the prioritisation of GBR’s own passenger services over private sector freight operators. The Government should be setting ambitious freight growth targets within GBR’s remit and outline plans on how to achieve them. That is why I urge the Minister to ensure the creation and protection of strategic freight corridors.

There are also opportunities for improvement in my constituency. Enabling infrastructure works at Ashburys and Ardwick via Northern Powerhouse Rail would enable the much-needed tram train services to Marple. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of how the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme can support freight and passenger ambitions in the north-west.

Rail freight is already quietly doing a great amount of work every day in communities across the country. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how the Government intend to match that ambition with action.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this debate, and I thank her for providing this welcome opportunity to discuss the critical role that rail freight plays in strengthening supply chain resilience and supporting our economic and decarbonisation goals. Many hon. Members have taken part in the debate to highlight the important role that rail freight plays in their constituencies and the potential for its greater use, and to acknowledge the role of rail freight workers, on whom the industry depends.

As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove set out clearly, rail freight is at the heart of our transport and logistics networks. It moves materials to build our homes, food to stock our shelves and fuel to keep our lights on, and it does that with significant environmental and social benefits. It emits far less carbon than road freight. It takes lorries off congested roads, leading to less wear and tear on our local roads. Many communities recognise that it is valuable to shift heavy goods from road to rail, and that they would benefit from it.

Teesport is one of the country’s most important freight gateways, yet freight from the east coast main line, which is very congested, still has to travel via Darlington because the Northallerton to Eaglescliffe line lacks full W12 gauge clearance. Will the Minister commit to meeting me to discuss that issue and see what we can do to get those upgrades in place?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that concern in his part of England. I will ensure that the Rail Minister writes to him about that matter, or arranges a meeting if that is more appropriate.

In a world of increasing uncertainty and geopolitical volatility, it is vital that we have secure, resilient supply chains. Rail freight, which is a fuel-efficient way of transporting goods, is a core node in those supply chains. That is why the Government have been absolutely clear about our ambition to encourage the growth of the sector and to strengthen its role in our transport network. To that end, we have committed to the target of increasing rail freight by at least 75% by 2050.

Rail reform is a significant opportunity to realise that ambition. Members have been closely scrutinising the Railways Bill over the past few months, and it will of course return to this House for further debate shortly. Members know that the current system has failed to unlock fully the potential of rail freight, and lacks the incentives and the structural framework to drive growth. Nor do we have a single entity with strategic overview of the railway deciding what network capacity should be made available for freight.

The current model for network access is an application-led first come, first served market model with no whole-system oversight. The concept of strategic freight capacity, designed to reserve space on the railway for new freight, is broken. Train paths labelled as strategic freight are not actually strategically planned—often, they do not even join up to form useful routes—and even those limited paths are nigh-on impossible to safeguard because they are given the very lowest priority in the timetable rules. That has meant that, over time, the capacity earmarked for future freight has been eroded.

Great British Railways can and will deliver better outcomes for freight. It will have two freight-specific statutory duties: first, to promote the use of rail freight and, secondly, to have regard to the freight growth target set by the Secretary of State for Transport. Taken together, those duties will ensure that freight is embedded at the heart of GBR’s decision making.

It was great to welcome the Minister to my constituency to visit the east midlands rail freight terminal, which has huge potential to take vehicles off the road and on to rail.

Bardon has a quarry, and a private spur of the Ivanhoe line is used. In the conversation about reopening the Ivanhoe line, only a passenger assessment has been undertaken. Will the Minister consider both freight and passenger rail in future conversations about bringing rail lines back into use?

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. She is a great champion for the freight industry more broadly, and I know how important it is to her constituency. I will certainly ensure that the Rail Minister, my noble Friend Lord Hendy, considers the issues that she raises.

A representative on GBR’s board will have responsibility for freight, and a central freight team will provide customers with a single point of contact for promoting freight across the organisation. Taken together, those measures will ensure strong leadership at the top and advocacy at the heart of the organisation.

The sector will also benefit from a new capacity allocation framework. That framework will support a more strategic and proactive approach to allocating capacity. It will have one single directing mind—Great British Railways—taking a whole-system approach to make best use of the available capacity. The access-and-use policy required by the framework and by the Railways Bill is being developed and will be consulted on in September.

We know that we alone cannot achieve our ambitions for the sector. That is why we are setting up GBR as an astute commercial entity. It will be equipped with the right incentives and mechanisms to engage with private investors and offer them commitments that secure a return on investment. That will encourage third parties to invest in rail, helping to drive modal shift and grow rail freight, which many Members, including the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, have called for.

The hon. Lady raised a number of questions, a few of which I will attempt to pick up on. She asked about the expansion of more modern signalling, which will be helpful. The east coast digital programme is fitting signalling in a number of locomotives. That will be the first part of the network to have the signalling that she described, which can then be rolled out further. I recognise the importance of modernising our rail network to ensure that we take advantage of the new technologies available to enable trains to run closer together, for example, and therefore to create more capacity.

The hon. Lady also asked about the freight growth target. Under the duty set out in the Bill, GBR must have regard to the freight targets set by Ministers. It is expected to demonstrate how it has considered those targets and how its activities align with the goals set out by Ministers. Additionally, GBR’s business plan will be expected to demonstrate how it plans to work towards achieving the freight growth target. The Secretary of State will sign off that plan only once they have received expert advice from the Office of Rail and Road and are satisfied that the plans set out meet the Government’s expectations and priorities for the railways, including on rail freight.

Of course, the ORR has powers of appeal where freight operators are not happy about the way in which GBR has carried out its duties or feel that it has not taken decisions that are consistent with its policies. GBR is obviously bound by the Competition Act 1998, and will not be able to prioritise its own services. Its decision making must be fair, transparent and subject to challenge in the ways that I have set out.

I also want to take this opportunity to touch on the ongoing crisis in the middle east and the impact that it might have on the rail freight sector. The effects of the crisis have highlighted the importance of having a strong rail freight sector as a node in our resilient, diverse supply chains. Last month, the Chancellor cut fuel duty for red diesel users, such as rail freight operators, by more than a third until the end of the year. That means that rates are at their lowest level in more than 20 years. That will help to keep costs down and protect those vital businesses. As I think we all recognise, the economics of freight transport have sometimes disadvantaged rail freight. My officials will continue to work closely with rail freight operating companies on routine resilience planning as a sensible precaution to protect supply chains.

Finally, I emphasise again that rail freight will continue to be an integral part of our transport network as we transition to a new operating model for the railway. Our ambitious programme of reform will mean that rail freight can continue to prosper under a transformed rail sector. That will bring benefits for all our constituencies, including that of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I recognise the importance of aggregates, not just in her constituency, with the example of tarmac, but across that whole part of the country, stretching into the east midlands—I have been and seen that for myself. That is why we want rail freight to thrive and prosper, and why, in setting up Great British Railways in the way that we have—with important duties in relation to rail freight—we are confident that we can grow this sector for the future, delivering the many benefits that she and other hon. Members have set out.

Question put and agreed to.