PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Old Oak Common Station - 17 December 2024 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of Old Oak Common station on rail services to the West and Wales.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. We all know that opinions on High Speed 2 are many and varied—whether or not that line is a good thing is not up for debate today—but nobody would have expected that the development of a high-speed rail line heading from the north to London and back again would have a negative impact on trains heading west. Something about that statement seems entirely illogical. Unfortunately for people in the west and Wales, it is indeed the case that there will be widespread disruption to trains between London Paddington and the west and south Wales for the next six years, and after that six-year period is over, every train between the west and south Wales and London will be slower.

The reason for the delays and slower services is the new Old Oak Common station, which is being built to serve HS2. At this point, it is important to state that today’s debate, and indeed the wider public discussion, cannot be about whether HS2 happens at all or whether Old Oak Common station is built. HS2 is happening, and anyone who has travelled on the Great Western line recently will know that Old Oak Common is being built. But there are three points that we must all take up on behalf of our constituents. The first is how the impact of construction work at Old Oak Common can be mitigated. The second is how Old Oak Common can become a useful station for our regions. The third is how the Government can use their power to mitigate the long-term impact of slower trains heading to and from the west and south Wales, by improving services in other ways. I will ask a number of questions, and although I am sure that some of them do not yet have answers, I hope the Minister will at least be able to address each one to confirm the Government’s position and their intentions.

First, I will deal with the construction phase. Most people who are aware of the new station will know it as the place where the previous Government had intended to terminate HS2. That was before the new Government decided to bring back the suggestion that HS2 will end at Euston. But it is much more complicated than that. Old Oak Common is being built on the Great Western line, as I mentioned, and consequently a decision has been taken that all trains using the line will eventually stop at Old Oak Common.

That decision makes sense to those in charge of big transport infrastructure, but it will not necessarily make sense to the people we serve in the west and south Wales. Rail industry experts tell us that it will add between four and seven minutes to each journey in the long run. During the period of disruption while construction takes place, we will endure 29 days of disruption in this current operational year—that disruption has already begun—30 days of disruption in 2025-26, 41 days of disruption in 2026-27, including 14 days when no trains run at all, 34 days of disruption in 2027-28, including 11 days when no trains run at all, and 47 days of disruption in 2028-29, including 18 days when no trains run at all. The disruption for the following year is not yet known.

The majority of the impact will fall on Sundays and at Christmas. We might assume that Sunday is a quiet day on the railways, but since my election and my need to travel to London, sometimes on a Sunday evening, I can tell Members that that is not the case, particularly when Great Western Railway is unable to run most of its timetable. The number of constituencies that will be impacted by the work is absolutely huge. Starting from furthest away, it will be every constituency in Cornwall and Devon, most of Somerset, Bristol, parts of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, south Wales, Gloucestershire—my own area of the country—Wiltshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire. That is a lot of people whose journeys will be slower for a long time, and a lot of people who will have to make alternative arrangements when trains are cancelled.

My constituency, which includes Penzance station, will be deeply affected. We are five hours away from Old Oak Common and will experience much of the pain with no gain. Just a fraction of the £67 billion being spent on HS2—for example, just one two-hundredth of that budget—could address the issue in Dawlish, which is three hours away from Penzance. Those kinds of things need to be addressed if we are to see some kind of compensation.

I absolutely agree. Although joining up London with the north and the midlands is a laudable aim, there is a real risk that the west and south Wales could be left out. The amount of money being spent on HS2 is not matched by rail investment towards the west, as those of us who represent constituencies there are well aware.

My first question to the Minister is: what assessment has been made of the fixed-term construction disruption to the economies of the constituencies affected, including my own in Cheltenham? What assessment has been made of the clear risk that the disruption caused by construction is wider than that which is currently being reported, with perhaps extra days of construction work leading to more cancellations? What discussions have Ministers had with Network Rail about whether the speed limit associated with the construction work could be 80 mph rather than 60 mph?

The second area to explore is how Old Oak Common might become a station that serves our constituencies, rather than simply making things less convenient. That is a much more complex discussion, and those of us who have seen the maps will know that that is still up for debate. Rail industry professionals suggest that there is an opportunity to either improve services or significantly mitigate the impact of the potential disruption, but the core problem is clear. At a time when the national rail network is struggling so badly and the Government are promising a brighter future under Great British Railways, our constituents must be able to see benefits.

I am certain that most Members present will agree that those additional four to seven minutes must be offset, and Old Oak Common has the potential to become a significant interchange, enabling travellers from the west and south Wales to switch to the London transport network earlier, perhaps via the Elizabeth line or London Overground services. Achieving that aim would ensure smooth onward journeys, not just into central London but, if it is done right, elsewhere. What assurances can the Minister give us that the station interchange will be just as convenient as Paddington, if not more so? Is the convenience of the interchange with the Elizabeth line as secure as Members have been led to believe in some of the briefings, or is that not yet guaranteed?

If an interchange to the Elizabeth line is secured, can the Minister tell me the anticipated journey time to central London to and from my Cheltenham constituency after those works are complete? Can the Minister also confirm whether technical studies on interchanging with overground services have begun, so that we can work out what is possible? Nothing that Members are hearing so far suggests that the technical work has been properly considered, or even whether it has been started at any level. If studies have begun, what work has been done to cost future works? If they have not, when will those studies take place?

The rail Minister has expressed the view that enabling those of us from the south-west to connect to the midlands and Birmingham would be one mitigation, but does the hon. Member agree that that is not a good enough result for the overground services? Frankly, we need connections into London, because we can already get to the midlands and the services that HS2 would be offering.

I can see why the hon. Member’s constituents in Devon would not be interested in going to London before going to the midlands. She makes a very good point.

If those studies have not begun, what work has been done to cost the future works? If not, when will those studies take place? For those whose journeys are inevitably taking them to the area around Paddington, what reassurances are there that congestion west of Paddington can be dealt with in order to maintain capacity?

My third point is about restoring trust in our railways by making more general improvements to passenger experience—I want to mention some hyper-local issues, which I hope the Minister will listen to. Although there will undoubtedly be a period of disruption and uncertainty, there are also some clear opportunities to improve rail services. Five-carriage inter-city trains routinely run in excess of passenger capacity for large parts of journeys to the west. Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the mitigation of the Old Oak Common disruption, more rolling stock will be found to ensure that passengers do not routinely have to endure journeys in which they are forced to stand for unacceptably long periods of time? I have stood with pensioners and vulnerable people next to the loo for longer than an hour on journeys west from Paddington.

Will the Minister confirm that those of us who use trains for business can expect wi-fi improvements? Although the current GWR service offers wi-fi on board, it routinely proves useless for large parts of the journey, which is definitely a drag on the economy.

I want to mention the shocking damage to tourism, given the number of people who leave Paddington and try to go west. My constituents are stunned to find that all this has only just come to light—my hon. Friend referred to six years of closure; I have heard seven, and we all know that projects overrun. I also want to reiterate his point that first-class travel is meaningless on GWR, because those trains are almost always overcrowded—people going west in first class have to stand in the corridor, sit on their suitcases or find somewhere else. Also, the Glastonbury festival finishes on a Sunday, and many people travel in and out of Glastonbury on a Sunday, so this will be incredibly damaging to that event.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The impact on tourism is felt by all our constituencies in the west, many of which are tourism hotspots. The point about connectivity is important. If we can have 5G on the Elizabeth line in London, which is already well served by public transport, why can I not have 5G in the countryside between Swindon and Stroud when I travel back to my constituency? It makes no sense. The benefits to business users would surely justify the investment.

I have already asked the rail industry whether progress might be made on the frustrating turnaround times at Gloucester, which delay Cheltenham passengers every day. I accept that it is unlikely that any progress will made soon, but what chance is there of improving rail infrastructure around Gloucester, to remove the need for the driver to switch from one end of the train to the other—a very 20th-century solution?

Finally, I come to the trains themselves. The current rolling stock is functional, but what plans do Ministers have to make the carriages more pleasant? Older constituents recall the days of comfortable seats and a buffet carriage with snacks. In other European nations, inter-city trains even have carriages with special family-friendly areas where children can play. A civilised and family-friendly nation should surely consider that.

It is no exaggeration to say that weekends are a nightmare. What are Ministers doing in the short term and during the period of disruption to ensure that a Sunday timetable actually runs between London and the west country?

My hon. Friend raises the need for improvements. The key issue for commuters in my constituency is that the existing GWR mainline is not fit for purpose. In recent weeks, we have seen significant delays and diversions caused by flooding and signalling failures, which has created even more pressure on other parts of the already overstretched network. Does he agree that work at Old Oak Common needs to be accompanied by immediate investment in existing infrastructure to improve the reliability of services for people from the west?

I absolutely do. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made the point that, compared with HS2, the amount of money that needs to be invested for improvement in the west country is relatively small.

By way of compensation to Cheltenham for the disruption, can the Minister please ask Network Rail to stop blocking the long-awaited extension to the cycle path that links Cheltenham town centre to the station? Network Rail has been getting in the way of that development for years. It just needs to get out of the way to improve connectivity in my constituency.

I have asked a number of questions, which are intended as helpful contributions. I am sure that other hon. Members will have pertinent points about the impact on their constituencies. Before I finish, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the new Minister for the Armed Forces. Having researched this issue in the previous Parliament, he played a leadership role by passing on information to new hon. Members, helping to bring about today’s debate, for which we thank him.

Order. I remind hon. Members who wish to speak to stand, so that I know you wish to speak. When a speech ends, you must stand. I note that there are a number of people who want to intervene. I am happy for that to take place, but interventions must be brief. I will not put a hard time limit on speeches, but five minutes is about the right length of time to get everybody in. If you could stick to that timescale, it would be very helpful.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The south-west is a region with enormous untapped economic potential. We already have a brilliant clean energy industry, which is growing. We have a fantastic defence industry, with lots of small and medium-sized enterprises. We have a thriving agricultural sector and a flourishing food sector. We have a tourism industry that welcomes more than 20 million visitors per year. Our economy depends very heavily, with all these things, on reliable transport links.

We in Devon are bucking the trend nationally. Since 2019, the proportion of rail journeys taken across the country has fallen by 6%, but in Devon, it has increased by 9%. Time and again, however, we have seen the west country miss out on rail investment, which has been concentrated in other parts of the country—in the midlands, the north of England and, of course, London. The south-west is left grappling with an underfunded and unreliable rail network.

The construction of Old Oak Common will exacerbate some of those challenges. Over the next decade, passengers travelling on mainline inter-city services serving the south-west will face severe disruption. Planned works will reduce the number of available seats on trains that are already crowded and have slow journey times. We will see a fall in the number of direct services to London Paddington. Last month, the Government pointed to a £30-million mitigation package. That is woefully inadequate. Compare it with the £6.5-billion cost of Old Oak Common —by contrast, £30 million is a pittance. Worryingly, that £30 million has already been committed to operational adjustments such as depot changes and electrification in London, with little or no regard for the south-west.

The Tories’ catastrophic management—or rather, mismanagement—of the rail system was exemplified by the two-year industrial dispute that cost taxpayers an eye-watering £25 million per strike day, and led to reforms that have saddled the public with hundreds of millions of pounds in additional cost. Nowhere is the previous Government’s legacy of transport failure more apparent than in relation to High Speed 2, where flip-flopping over the last 15 or 20 years has led to ballooning costs, neglected communities and misery for passengers.

I want to point out how that has affected people in some west-country communities. It might be supposed that it is only HS2 communities—people in the midlands and the north—who have been affected by some of the cost overruns and the indecision, but that is not so. When we saw the cancellation of HS2 by the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), there was then some big announcement about Network North, and we were promised that HS2 money was therefore going to be ploughed into stations and the redevelopment of stations across the country.

In the constituency I represent, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton came to visit. He hired a community room in a farm shop—a sort of farm shop conference centre. He and other Conservative activists held up British Rail placards with the word “Cullompton” underneath, as if to encourage people that somehow there was money from HS2 that could be invested in our local rail transport. That was absolutely not the case, as has since been revealed. Now we can see that those were all empty promises.

Old Oak Common is one more step in this misadventure, with an additional 20 minutes that it adds to a journey from Paddington to the south-west. That could be enough to influence holidaymakers to choose other destinations overseas, which would be a tragedy for the south-west economy. I really hope that the Government look kindly on proper mitigation.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case, as did our hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). Of course, his constituency of Honiton and Sidmouth is three and a half hours away from Penzance, so a 20-minute delay for people at Penzance is not necessarily the issue. It is the disruption, the uncertainty and all the other factors on the route that make the current service completely inadequate. That is really why we want to see investment in improvement, to bring the service up.

I recognise the particular plight of my hon. Friend’s constituents, who are as far south-west as one can go in England. My time is up, but I plead with the Minister to think again about the £30-million mitigation fund and whether it really offsets the costs that south-west residents will bear.

I call Ann Davies.

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

It is well documented that Wales is being robbed of £4 billion in consequential funding from HS2. Now we learn that Welsh passengers will be robbed of their time, as trains travelling along the Carmarthen—Caerfyrddin—to London line could be cut off from Paddington and diverted to Euston for at least seven years because of the construction of Old Oak Common. It is no wonder that HS2 is referred to as the Great Welsh Train Robbery.

However, it may not be only the passengers in south Wales who will be affected. It is likely that those travelling from north Wales to Euston will have to deal with even more crowded trains and disrupted journey times. Can the Minister tell us what meetings she has had with the Welsh First Minister to set out the near decade of disruption facing Welsh passengers, or have the Welsh Government made any representation to the UK Government on this issue? I find it unlikely that the Welsh Government have been standing up firmly for Wales regarding fairness for our passengers and railways. Only recently the First Minister of Wales said that she felt sorry for the Prime Minister after asking him for money from HS2. It is not the Prime Minister but Welsh passengers I feel sorry for, given that we are the ones being denied the investment needed in our railways.

Historically, Wales has had very low investment in our railways. Despite having 5% of the UK population and 11% of track miles, Wales has received only 1% to 2% of rail enhancement funding in recent years. The proportion of electrified route is 44% in England, 33% in Scotland and—wait for it—7% in Wales. That is shocking. Westminster Governments have broken promises for the electrification of the north Wales main line and for full electrification of the south Wales line up to Swansea. Can the Minister explain why the people of Wales should be denied a modern, fast and reliable railway like those of other European countries?

Old Oak Common is yet another example of how unjust the current arrangements are for Wales. The Government must change course, deliver the billions of pounds that Wales is owed from HS2 and ensure that there is proper mitigation for Welsh passengers because of the disruption at Old Oak Common. Diolch, Mr Efford.

Following the failures of the last Government on HS2, Old Oak Common might have made sense as a terminus to HS2 from the north. It is no longer that and now does not make any sense at all. A 14-platform station that duplicates connections from Paddington and Euston is neither wanted nor needed. We know that the trains can go to Euston; we have already seen that at weekends. The new tunnel will make that faster, no doubt.

I do understand that the station is being built—it is likely too late to redesign it—but after a period of six years of construction delay, it is adding insult to injury to then have a delay of between five to 15 minutes on every train on the GWR network going into and out of London. Yes, there is a choke part of the lines going into Paddington, but HS2 will be going to Euston, via tunnel, and the Elizabeth line is already going to Paddington, so we gain no benefit. I understand that the ongoing plan for all trains to stop at Old Oak Common has been under discussion, so surely it is now time to revise that decision and stop this bizarre plan in its tracks.

There is an alternative. Fast trains should not stop at Old Oak Common. In addition, the south-west must see benefits, and not just be second class to midlands traffic. At the very least, we need a commitment to complete the Dawlish resilience works, and to have other schemes, including partial electrification on the route to Cornwall, to speed up the line to Penzance.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate.

Wales is a proud industrial nation, which was built on the back of the railways, with the world’s first train operating at Penydarren ironworks in Merthyr Tydfil. It did not carry passengers—it carried coal—but it was a train none the less. However, Wales’s proud contribution to rail in this country has been diminished in recent years by both Government neglect and diminished services from rail providers.

As the development of HS2 continues, the work at Old Oak Common station in London may seem like an isolated project in the heart of England, with little consequence elsewhere. However, the implications for Wales are substantial and far-reaching. Construction work at Old Oak Common is set to impact services along the south Wales main line until 2030—five whole years during which Welsh travellers will face slower and more disruptive journeys into London. In addition to longer journey times, the disruption is expected to reduce the number of available seats, diminishing the already poor capacity and connectivity, with fewer direct trains to London reducing resilience to recover from any delays.

The disruption in services for residents across south Wales, including those in my constituency who use Great Western Railway services at Neath and Newport, comes without any significant long-term benefit to them. HS2 does not involve a single mile of track in Wales, yet the previous Conservative Government decided to class the project as an “England and Wales” project, a designation that Labour has taken an active political choice to keep, despite their own Ministers in Wales admitting it is deeply unjust. This means that Northern Ireland and Scotland both received consequential funding to spend on transport, while Wales received not a penny more—particularly none of the estimated £4 billion that it should have received as a result of the project.

Even ignoring HS2, Wales is already underfunded, as the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) has mentioned, when it comes to investment in rail, receiving just 1% of rail investment in the UK despite having 11% of the country’s rail network. That is having tangible real-life impacts. In my own constituency, the already limited service along the Heart of Wales line is being cut further.

Altogether, it seems that, despite Labour promising a change in how Wales is treated from when the Conservatives were in power, they have continued with a business-as-normal approach. It is completely inappropriate that my constituents, and people across Wales, are now expected to deal with a further reduction in services for several years, for a project in London that will provide no benefit to them, while they continue to be robbed of investment in their own local services. This Labour Government must listen to the Welsh people and ensure that this disruption is minimised and that Wales receives its fair share when it comes to rail funding.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. This is the second debate in a week that we have had on railway lines. I will not repeat everything that I said in last week’s debate, which was just about Devon, but we touched on Old Oak Common last week and I am keen to do so again today.

It is worth reminding anybody who is listening or reading the Hansard report that it was the coalition Government of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives who first published the White Paper for HS2 in 2010. There has been quite a lot of Conservative Government-bashing in this debate so far, but let us be realistic that it was a coalition decision. However, I will remain friends with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, with whom I work across Devon, and speak about the topic before us.

I will repeat one thing I said last week, because it is important: Devon and the wider south-west are not just holiday destinations. As the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) says, we have a thriving local economy. We are keen to make sure that it grows. Anything that hinders rail travel in and out of the south-west will have a problematic impact.

It is also worth noting that in the past few years we have celebrated achieving a three-hour train trip between Plymouth and London. I benefit from that when I get the 6.55 am train on a Monday, and no doubt many businesspeople and others travelling to London benefit in the same way. It is incredibly disappointing that that much sought-after shorter journey time will be put to one side over the next few years. My constituency of South West Devon is in exactly the same position as the constituencies of other hon. Members who have spoken. I can see no material benefits at the moment, except perhaps easier access to the Elizabeth line and, I suppose, Heathrow airport, for those of us fortunate enough to go on holiday from time to time.

The point to which I want to draw the most attention has already been covered, but is worth mentioning again: the £30 million mitigation, which the Government seem so proud of, to reassure people and compensate those who will be disrupted by the works at Old Oak Common. As has already been made clear, that will essentially pay for depot changes and electrification closer to London, so I struggle to see how it will compensate my constituents and others who live in the south-west.

Last week, not knowing the breakdown, I gave the Minister some suggestions for what that money could be spent on to make a material impact, including wi-fi. Finalising the business case for the Tavistock-Plymouth line, which would create a great horseshoe around the far reach of Devon, would need £1.5 million, which is not that much out of £30 million. Perhaps some of those things would be adequate compensation. CrossCountry currently refuses to stop at Ivybridge in my constituency, because it claims that the platforms are not long enough. I am not convinced that that is actually the problem, but would it not be great to use the money to extend the platforms at Ivybridge? Can the Minister commit this morning to reassessing the £30 million mitigation pot so that the south-west—and Wales, which other hon. Members have mentioned—see some benefits?

I am also very concerned about the communications. The rail Minister in the other place came back to us very quickly after a meeting about communications, but the works will have an impact on a variety of weekends and days. I am struggling to get my head around that; no doubt other Members are, too. We need a commitment to making sure that the changes are explicitly communicated to residents and tourists alike.

My final thought is about a subject that has come up in the Transport Committee, of which I am a member. Great Western Railway is a big user of delay repay. Ultimately, delay repay is at the cost of the taxpayer. I do not want to be completely negative, but there will be inevitable delays on top of the lengthened train trips as a result of construction work. Who will pay for the inevitable increased delay repay claims? I assume it will be the good people of the south-west and the rest of the country. It is worth looking at the issue in the round and acknowledging that there is not just inconvenience, but huge cost.

I am pleased to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate.

As we have heard, the work at Old Oak Common will be hugely impactful on the south-west for at least the next seven years. A month from work starting, however, councils, MPs, businesses and interest groups are only just being notified of the impact on services. That is a totally unacceptable approach to public consultation. This work is meant to last for seven years or more. For us in Frome and East Somerset, it follows 10 years of disruption to our rail services from the electrification of the main line and the construction of the Elizabeth line. The new project will affect approximately 56 million passenger journeys a year through Paddington and will push people on to other lines, such as South Western Railway, which cannot handle the passengers it has at the moment, let alone the numbers it would need to handle to avoid disruption.

My constituents have been left in the dark about how the project will affect them. There has been little to no consultation with local businesses or groups about the disruption. That is unacceptable. This Christmas, our railways are already being delayed thanks to essential work happening in Westbury, leaving many struggling to get from Frome to London. Furthermore, many people and businesses relocated to places like Frome and East Somerset during covid, partly based on the time and regularity of services. They will not have been aware of the plans when they made that decision.

The Prime Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) at Prime Minister’s questions on 27 November was welcome, but his comments that services are unaffected between Exeter and London Euston show his lack of understanding of the situation. Many of my constituents use Bath Spa station. The train from Exeter does not run through it, and it travels through Frome a maximum of twice a day. We are lucky that we have a stop on a main line, but many people will not even have access to that.

The planned work will leave the south-west with some of the slowest inter-city services in the country. It will severely reduce the number of trains running and the number of seats available. It will be a direct hit on the economies of the south-west and Wales; it will affect people not only now, but far into the future, as they adapt their investment and business decisions accordingly. We already have unreliable services with frankly rubbish wi-fi and mobile signal, which hampers people’s ability to work on the train. Millions of passengers will be displaced as a result of the work, which will increase journeys on roads and push services to other stations. Regular users of the M4 and M5 will dread the prospect of more cars on those motorways, particularly at weekends.

No one is denying that the work needs to happen or is going to happen. However, it seems that there has been little to no consideration of the impact on the south-west. I urge the Government to look into a programme of measures, many of which were brilliantly set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, that would mitigate the impact of the disruption caused by Old Oak Common and ensure that the south-west is not being left behind.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate. I agree with colleagues that it is important that we look predominantly to the future, but I want to reflect a little on how we have got here and on how Old Oak Common station even came to be.

As I understand it, Old Oak Common was intended as a substitute for a direct link from HS2 to Heathrow airport, which remains one of Europe’s busiest. What a bizarre solution, given that Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt, Copenhagen and Amsterdam Schiphol airports are all served by direct connections to their high-speed or inter-city network.

The decision to stop all trains at Old Oak Common is also bizarre, but it will be necessary if there are only to be two fast-line platforms with no relief line. I understand from a timetabling perspective why that is necessary, but we continue to lack a direct western link to Heathrow airport that enables inter-city trains from the south-west and the west to connect to Heathrow directly. That is a scheme that has been on and off more times than I can count.

Having said all that, as is so often the case with British infrastructure schemes, we are where we are. There is no point in crying over spilt milk, or in this case spilt concrete. What else can be done to ease the disruption impact? Colleagues have asked whether there may be an opportunity to improve the construction schedule to reduce the impact. I also call on the Minister to ensure that the train operators properly examine options for more or longer trains on alternative routes. For example, between Reading and London Waterloo four trains an hour could easily be accommodated in the timetable. There could also be longer and more frequent trains between Oxford and London Marylebone.

Given that we are going to have this station, how can we make the most of it? I would like to add to the wish list of my colleagues for compensatory improvements, which, it must be said, probably exceeds in length the Christmas lists of all of the offspring of Members of this House. I would like to see electrification completed to Bristol and between Didcot and Oxford. Bi-mode trains are not very reliable in comparison with all-electric trains. We are constantly afflicted by five-car trains—even on long-distance routes, for example between London and Swansea—stopping at Didcot Parkway in my Oxfordshire constituency. As colleagues have eloquently outlined, we need Sunday to be part of the working week. Sundays can no longer be treated as some sort of bizarre and exceptional time for people to travel.

My colleagues in the south-west have articulately made the case for investment in the resilience of the Dawlish sea wall to improve the reliability of the only rail connection south-west of Exeter. In my constituency, I am campaigning hard for a new railway station at Grove and Wantage, serving the growing population in that area.

My colleagues are quite right to say that we should make the most of Old Oak Common’s location to improve connectivity to north and south London on the west London and north London lines. We must also make the most of its potential to create a much easier connection between GWR trains and Elizabeth line trains, which would ease passenger congestion at London Paddington. On the face of it, the new station will provide limited benefit to users of GWR in Oxfordshire and elsewhere, but I hope that the Minister will use every opportunity to make the most of it.

Order. Mr Amos, you were not here at the opening; I must remind you that you should be here for the opening speech. However, as we have made good time, I will allow you to speak, because I appreciate how important the issues are to our constituents.

My apologies for joining late, Mr Efford. I attempted to explain that to you through the Doorkeeper at the beginning of the meeting; I apologise if there was some mix-up. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing this important debate. The wide range of constituencies represented in the debate and in other discussions on the subject shows just how many parts of the country are affected negatively by this proposal, and why it needs to be thought through again.

The proposals underlying the original HS2 Bill were very different from what we have ended up with. I think we can all understand why parties across the House supported the original HS2, but they did not expect it to mean that almost every journey to almost every station in the west of England would be delayed, with a long period of diversions as well.

Taunton and Wellington sits at a transport fulcrum, 99 minutes from Paddington and 33 minutes from Bristol Temple Meads. Although we are further from London than Bristol, we are actually closer in terms of journey time. Decisions taken by businesses and by people deciding where to live are changed by differences of a few minutes’ journey time and the distances that they need to travel, so the Old Oak Common project would have a major negative effect on our local economy in Taunton. One of the biggest factors in our local economy is the connections at the fantastic railway station, designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, in the heart of the town. As hon. Members across the west country have said, these decisions are important to all our local economies.

As well as the six-year diversion, which seems totally unnecessary, the key point that I hope the Minister will address is why it should be necessary for every single train to stop at Old Oak Common. I have been told in meetings that even if not every train stops, the journey time will be increased by trains having to slow down as they go through the station. I have stood on many station platforms, and I am absolutely certain that trains have not slowed down a jot as they have sped through, leaving the wind blowing across the platform. I do not understand why all trains need to be slowed down. We are undermining the strength of the Great Western line, and the speed to stations across the whole of the west of England. It seems totally unnecessary, and it is totally unacceptable to me and my constituents.

The history has been well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) as a misadventure in rail planning over recent years, and the inadequacy of current services exacerbates the problem. Sunday services are treated like a voluntary sector operation, in which passengers might get a driver if they are really lucky. A catalogue of cancelled trains on Sundays is a certainty. That has to change. It is totally unacceptable in the 21st century.

I also reiterate the comments of hon. Members about the lack of wi-fi, the shortage of carriages, the shortness of trains, and the fact that it is normal for passengers to sit on the floor outside the toilets when they may have paid more £200 for a ticket. How can that possibly be justified? I am grateful that the Minister for Rail in the other place has met with hon. Members. I know he is concerned, and I hope that the Government will continue to strive as hard as they can to mitigate some of those effects.

Somerset has not been blessed with enormous amounts of investment in transport in recent months. We have had the cancellation of the A303 and the A358, which has reduced investment in the area by £2 billion, so it really is time that we saw some transport investment coming into Somerset, not being taken out. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth wants to see the Cullompton and Wellington stations project go ahead, which is also my dream. With a benefit-cost ratio of 3.67, we believe that it is the most economically important station reopening project in the country. Let us see some compensation for that project, and let us ensure that not every single train to the entire west country has to be slowed down. I urge the Government to think very hard before disadvantaging such a huge region of England and Wales.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this debate. As we have heard from cross-party colleagues, there is understandable worry and concern about current and upcoming work. This is an important issue; the disruption is impacting the lives of millions of people, and it is good that we can shine a spotlight on it today.

I start by outlining why, however, this is clearly a positive in many ways. After years of neglect by the Conservatives, it is clear that our public transport is not in a fit state, and nowhere is that more keenly felt than our railways. Therefore, notwithstanding what we have heard, and the overspending and mismanagement, HS2 and the associated work at Old Oak Common are an increasing but welcomed rarity. A new rail project of that size is needed and should be lauded for building the vital infrastructure that we need. The new station, when built, will provide a vital interchange that west London is currently lacking. Old Oak Common is vital for us to achieve the full range of economic benefits of HS2 and it will form a vital transport hub for millions of journeys, including those for future passengers from the west of Wales.

The impacts that the project will have on people’s lives and the economy in the meantime should not be overlooked, and we have heard the real concerns of hon. Friends, particularly those representing constituencies in the south-west and Wales. My hon. Friends the Members for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Cheltenham and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about the widespread disruption. That is a real issue and we need the Government to see what they can do to address it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) spoke about the effect on tourism in Glastonbury and on the economy. How are we going to mitigate those things? My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) spoke about the resentment out there at the failure to invest for many years in the south-west and in Wales. We must address the inadequate service and the failure to invest. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) spoke about the inadequacy of the mitigation fund—£30 million is not enough. Can more be put there, and can more be done with it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) spoke about the failure to carry out electrification. We need to electrify more of those rail lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) talked about the failure to invest in railways in Wales. That is a problem that has gone on for years and years—a constant failure to invest in Welsh railways. We need to do more.

The Department for Transport must keep a very close eye on this project, for all those reasons. With work taking place in such a vital part of the Great Western Railway mainline, we cannot afford greater disruption than is already planned. In fact, we need to minimise it. While we all accept that disruptions caused by the construction are inevitable, it is essential that the Government show us that they doing all they can to minimise them. To ease disruption, changes need to be clearly communicated with the full arsenal of resources, from noticeboards to social media. We as MPs, and other elected officials, have communication channels of our own. We should play our part in ensuring that constituents know when disruption will occur. That requires the Government and the Department for Transport to talk to us, and communicate in good time all the things that will happen and the delays that will occur.

As the hon. Member for South West Devon said, we must strengthen the delay repay scheme to compensate for disruptions, while also ensuring that ticket prices reflect the disruption to services. Customers should not have to pay the same price for a journey that has been impacted by these works. Given the disruption, it is important to maximise the utility of Old Oak Common station by ensuring that it connects to Chiltern main line services, and on to the newly named Mildmay line. As the hon. Member said, we must maximise the potential of Old Oak Common and ensure that it is fully exploited, particularly in connections with London.

There is a lot to be done and, to mix my metaphors horribly, it will not all be plain sailing. Public confidence in this project has been undermined by various management mishaps and overspends, and the planning mistakes that were so articulately mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). But as he said, we are where we are. The loss of confidence now extends well beyond HS2, with widespread public scepticism about the UK’s ability to manage any infrastructure projects. I feel that that will only get worse unless the industry uses this opportunity to prove itself.

Ensuring that this project is well managed, on time and clearly communicated is key not only to minimising disruption and reducing the economic impact, but to rebuilding public trust in large-scale infrastructure projects across the UK. We must begin tackling other failings in our transport network, including the unacceptably poor provision of transport in Wales and the west. That is why it is critical that the open access rights that FirstGroup recently purchased for Carmarthen to London Paddington services are protected under rail nationalisation, and why the Government must invest in other railway schemes in the south-west, the midlands railways hub, and the north Wales main line.

Let us be clear: the Liberal Democrats and I support building infrastructure, ensuring that our railways receive the vital investment they need. However, we must remember that these projects are ultimately for passengers, who should always be at the centre of the decision-making process. Disruption is inevitable, but passengers and politicians must be convinced that it is being kept to a minimum.

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford; thank you for chairing this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing the debate. We can see by the level of activity and the number of people who have wanted to speak and intervene how important this is for the region, and how enlightening the debate has been. There has been a huge amount of unanimity about the criticisms and suggested solutions for the upcoming interruptions to the service to the south-west and Wales.

The hon. Member identified three different areas: mitigation, improving services for the west in the long run, and how to make Old Oak Common useful for passengers travelling on GWR. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) also focused on the mitigation sum, and wondered whether the £30 million identified by the Government would be enough adequately to compensate and mitigate those users who will have their travel disrupted for the next five years as a minimum. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) noticed that the Welsh rail network has only 7% electrification, and she was essentially demanding Barnett consequentials for the HS2 project. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) was one of a number of Members who highlighted that all trains were due to stop at Old Oak Common, and that that would add between four and seven minutes, depending on the estimates, to everyone’s journey. He also highlighted the need to spend a portion of mitigation sums on the Dawlish works.

The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) highlighted what he described as under-investment in Welsh railways, largely because of the designation of HS2 as an England and Wales project, rather than just an English project, and the consequential lack of additional payments under the Barnett consequentials.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) focused on the need to reassess the use of the £30 million compensation payment scheme. Since the debate on this subject in this place last week that she and I participated in, the Government have provided further information on how they intend to use that £30 million. She believes that the money is being focused on the wrong areas. As if it made the point for her, she also highlighted the need for better communication of delays and other changes. She made a very interesting point when she put a question to the Minister, and I hope that the Minister will reply to it in her response to the debate. My hon. Friend also asked who will pay for the delay repay scheme—will it be the taxpayer, or is there another mechanism for funding those compensatory payments?

The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) again focused on better mitigation. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) did too, and he made an interesting point—that it is no longer correct to say that Sunday is an exceptional day of transport; it is actually part of the general use of the railways. Finally, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) questioned the need for every train to stop at Old Oak Common.

I will return to the issue of Sundays. The Christmas period is coming up and we know that there will be a very significant impact on GWR trains. They will terminate at Ealing Broadway and then the passengers are supposed to use the Central line or District line. There will be no Elizabeth line and there will be a reduced service between Ealing Broadway, Reading and Heathrow. All of that will happen only if everything goes according to plan, because the assumption is that GWR will be able to run a full service, as planned, during the Christmas period, but that relies on ASLEF train drivers volunteering to work overtime. I assume that the Government have plans to make sure that happens, because this is now a Government problem; it is not a GWR problem. It is a Government problem because it was the Government who intervened in the pay negotiations with ASLEF and awarded train drivers a pay increase of £9,000 with no conditions attached. In addition, because that pay award was backdated, I understand—from social media, at least—that train drivers have received a payment of £16,000.

One would have thought that when the Government awarded that very significant pay increase, they would have made sure that holiday services were secured in return, but that is not the case. Nothing was secured in return. In fact, the Government intervention has made the situation worse, because if media reports are to be believed, there has been a reduction in the number of train drivers agreeing to volunteer to man Christmas and overtime services. So, because this is a problem created by the Government, I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what the Government’s solution to it is over Christmas, new year, and indeed every Sunday in future.

That is in the short term, but there is also a need for long-term mitigation. Speaker after speaker today has focused on the inadequacy of the £30 million that has been identified for mitigation payments and questioned how the Government intend to spend that money. Therefore, my message to the Minister is this: listen to local representatives. They know their area, they know what is important to their constituents and they know much better than departmental officials how mitigation funding can be spent. If anything is to be taken away from this debate, it is that the local representatives who have stood up for their constituents in this debate have repeatedly highlighted the areas that need to be focused on to mitigate some of the worst impacts on their constituents and the rest of the travelling public.

That brings me, finally, to communication. We know that delays are inevitable. This is a huge infrastructure project and everyone—at least everyone who has participated in this debate—recognises that some delay is inevitable. What is important is that changes to services are well communicated so that passengers are informed well in advance, alternative services are run effectively—they run on time and have sufficient capacity to take the number of passengers who will be using them—and the Government supply adequate compensation for poor and reduced services, not just for a day or two, but for years.

Compensation can come in a number of different ways. As some hon. Members have suggested, fares could be reduced over that period to take account of increased journey times and unpredictability. Alternatively, increase the mitigation payments significantly above the current £30 million that the Government have identified, not as an additional cost but as a recognition that the quality of service to the travelling public in the south-west and Wales will be adversely affected. We need to do as much as we can to prevent that, but what plans does the Minister have to reduce prices or to increase the bucket of compensation to reflect the reduced services?

The key takeaway for the Minister is to listen to local Members of Parliament, hear their concerns about the impact of the reduced service on their constituents, and take very seriously their recommendations for mitigation.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing this debate on the impact of Old Oak Common on rail services to Wales and the west of England. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

This Government understand the important role the rail network plays in providing connectivity to support economic development, housing and employment growth, as well as access to jobs, public services and leisure. That is why we have made fixing Britain's railways one of our top transport priorities. We have been clear that rail services have been failing passengers for too long. Cancellations are at a 10-year high and punctuality is inconsistent across the network, so I will take no lectures from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew).

We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer. We have taken immediate action, such as bringing an end to the long-running pay dispute with train drivers, and Ministers continue to meet managing directors of train operators and their Network Rail counterparts to address poor performance and demand immediate action to raise standards. If the shadow Minister’s Government were in power, we would still see drivers out on strike. Just last week, the Minister for Rail met again with Great Western Railway and Network Rail to ensure that they are progressing their plans to restore reliability on the route.

I will respond to the questions from the hon. Member for Cheltenham in a little while. First, I will address the subject of the debate. Old Oak Common station is a crucial enabler for the Government's growth mission. It will be not just a connection to HS2 for Birmingham and the north, but a destination in its own right, providing access to work and housing development alongside better connections to other services, including the Elizabeth line through central London, and to Heathrow airport. However, I recognise hon. Members’ concerns about the impact of the station and the construction works on rail services from Wales and the west.

The key theme set out by hon. Members from across Wales and the south-west is that we are all being kept in the dark. What will the Minister do to engage with MPs from across the region and tell us what plans for mitigation are being put in place in our constituencies for the planned works at Old Oak Common?

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I will use the rest of my speech to do just that. My colleague the Minister for Rail has already had a meeting with a large number of MPs to discuss these issues, and he will continue to engage on precisely those points.

As you will appreciate, Mr Efford, a project of the scale and significance of Old Oak Common cannot be delivered without some disruption to existing services. Our challenge to HS2 Ltd is to keep the disruption to a minimum and to support Network Rail and train operators to keep passengers moving. The next phase of work takes place this Christmas, with changes made to Great Western Railway services from 27 to 29 December. The rail industry has been working hard to prepare for the work and has invested £30 million to mitigate its impact and keep passengers moving.

I will set out some of the things that that money has paid for. While some of the interventions are close to London, they are designed specifically to allow Great Western Railway passenger services during Old Oak Common works, such as electrification of the Poplars railway, which connects the Great Western main line and the west London line. That allows services to access their maintenance depot and for more Great Western Railway trains to terminate at Ealing Broadway. Investment has been made in Ealing Broadway and Reading stations so that they can provide better information to connecting passengers; in facilities at Euston to allow for the terminating Great Western Railway long-distance services, including the Penzance sleeper services; in alternative stabling for the Hitachi trains that serve Great Western Railway; and in other, similar provisions that are designed to help Great Western Railway services to continue operating during the period of disruption.

During these days, some inter-city services will divert to London Euston and some will terminate at Reading or Ealing Broadway. Extensive mitigations have been progressed behind the scenes so that trains continue to be maintained and can provide services again after the works. Passenger communications are happening now to enable people to make choices about how and when they travel. I recognise the importance of providing timely passenger information to enable people to do that. The next significant blockade had been due to take place in December 2026, but this is now being re-planned to a later date by HS2 Ltd. Further detail on the future works plan will be shared as soon as it is available in the spring.

Old Oak Common station is being built to enable all Great Western main line and relief line services to call at the station. This is important for future-proofing, but while all trains will be able to call, the future timetable will be under development for many years, so it is still too early to say with any certainty which trains will call there or from when, but I will come back to that in a moment. We know that many passengers from Wales and the west of England value the faster journeys into London, and will have other options, not via HS2, to travel north. The Rail Minister and I have heard from many colleagues about the concerns of their constituents, and officials are working with the industry to assess the options for calling patterns at Old Oak Common.

I was listening very carefully, and I think the Minister just said that not all trains will necessarily stop at Old Oak Common. Could she confirm that, please?

I can confirm that the station is being constructed to allow all Great Western services to call, but no decision has been made on the future timetable.

None the less, building the station requires realignment of the Great Western main line to curve around new platforms. Unfortunately, that means that even trains that do not stop at the station will have a small increase in journey times. I know the Rail Minister has already asked industry partners to review current plans to ensure the impact of this is minimised. I will come back to this when I answer questions from hon. Members. I also recognise that this disruption comes on top of several years of poor performance on this route. The Government are determined to reverse that trend, improve punctuality and reliability, and rebuild a railway we can once again be proud of.

I do not think I can answer all of the questions that were posed during the debate, but I shall attempt to respond to a few of them. I know that my colleague the Rail Minister has met with many hon. Members to listen to their concerns, and that he is committed to finding the best possible solution that minimises disruption to services to constituencies in Wales and the west. He will continue to engage with hon. Members on this issue. A number of Members asked whether Great Western Railway services will stop at Old Oak Common and raised concerns about the impact on journey times. There will be a small but permanent journey time impact for all services passing through Old Oak Common without stopping. I recognise that that is a disbenefit to hon. Members’ constituents, and the Rail Minister has asked what more can be done to get that down from the estimated 90 seconds.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked about increasing running through the station from 60 mph to 80 mph, and Network Rail has already begun to develop proposals. They were discussed at the last Old Oak Common programme board, which the Rail Minister attended. If some or all services are to stop at Old Oak Common—as I said, no decision has been made yet on future timetables; that is some way off—it will, of course, add further to journey times. Four to seven minutes added to journey times has been suggested. That would slow down those services but would allow for potential interchange with the Elizabeth line and access to parts of London via the Elizabeth line and the London Overground. The London Overground does not connect directly, but work has begun on Old Oak Common connectivity and a range of options are under consideration, from improved walking routes through to more material interventions.

Various periods of blockade were discussed. The programme is currently under review, but there will be periods of disruption, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham set out, and those are likely to of the duration that he described or longer. As has been noted, there will be diversions to Euston when the blockades are in place, which will allow services to continue directly into central London for the many constituencies represented here today when the line between Ealing Broadway and Paddington is closed. That will add perhaps 15 to 20 minutes on to journey times.

The hon. Gentleman and others asked about short-form trains. He described clearly the impact on people’s journey experience, which is totally unsatisfactory. I know that the availability of sufficient fleet is vital. I recognise the inadequacy of the situation when the trains are over capacity and I know that the Minister for Rail is working to address this.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned wi-fi. Free wi-fi is available on Great Western Railway services, but I know from my own travels that there are connectivity issues on part of the network. The Rail Minister has asked officials to explore the feasibility of a range of technology options to improve passenger connectivity on the rail network. The Department is conducting research to measure the strength of mobile phone signals along the network to fully understand where interventions are needed and the potential impacts.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issues of Sunday timetables and cancellations. Problems with infrastructure, fleet reliability, and train crew availability have resulted in high levels of cancellations on Sundays in recent months, and I agree that that is unacceptable. We know these issues must be addressed. They were not addressed by the previous Government and we are working to do so.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned progress on the extension to the Honeybourne line active travel route in Cheltenham. I know it well, and I agree with his assessment that it would be a valuable extension. I understand that Great Western Railway, Network Rail, and Gloucestershire county council are working to progress the project, and if there is more we can do to hurry it along, I am sure the Rail Minister will be happy to do so.

I am aware that I get another chance to speak shortly, but the reason I raised Network Rail’s blocking of that scheme is because of the way it has been done: by extending contract negotiations over years, to the point when a bit of cycle path is costing tens of thousands of pounds per metre because Network Rail demands ever greater levels of infrastructure to be inserted. I have raised this with Ministers and all sorts of people, but it is clear that Network Rail just wanted to kick it into the long grass by making it uneconomic. I know that the Minister is an advocate for active travel, so if she could intervene with Network Rail and just say, “Get it done,” I would be grateful.

As the hon. Gentleman says, this Government are committed to increasing the number of people who walk and cycle for short journeys. If there is something that my colleagues in the Department and I can do to unblock things and get them moving, we will do it.

Questions were asked about investment in Welsh railways. I assure hon. Members that the Wales Rail Board meets regularly and provides a forum for the UK and Welsh Governments to discuss matters of mutual interest. I understand the new Secretary of State is meeting the Secretary of State for Wales and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, Ken Skates, imminently to discuss transport in Wales. Transport Ministers regularly meet our counterparts in the devolved Governments.

I will close by taking this opportunity to confirm again that the Rail Minister is working with all partners to ensure minimum disruption to travellers on the Great Western main line, both during the construction of Old Oak Common station and when it is in operation. I recognise that these are difficult issues, which hon. Members are right to raise on behalf of their constituents. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham and all hon. Members for their participation in this debate. I fully acknowledge and appreciate the importance of the issue to him and his constituents, and indeed to all hon. Members’ constituents. We will work to come up with a viable solution.

We have 14 minutes left, but that is not an invitation for a long speech from Max Wilkinson. I call him to sum up.

Thank you, Mr. Efford; I will speak for no longer than an hour. There is much to reflect on. I am grateful to all colleagues for turning up to this important debate, and to the Minister for addressing a number of the points raised. I appreciate there were probably about 35 questions raised during various speeches, including some from myself. Will the hon. Lady take time later to work with the Rail Minister on responses to my questions about everything from the hyper-local, such as the Honeybourne line, up to the bigger picture stuff around wi-fi connectivity and the delays that Cheltenham passengers suffer at Gloucester?

The main thing to come out of the Minister’s response is that there is still an awful lot to play for. A key point that I took from what she said was that although the station is designed to take all the trains stopping there, including every service from the west, that need not be the case. That is different from what we are generally being briefed on as Members. When we talk about the technical studies that need to go into the future infrastructure that might link into the overground services elsewhere, there is an impact on timings, on the public debate and on the Government’s willingness to fund the studies and the infrastructure. We are now in a period of uncertainty about whether all of the Great Western main line trains will indeed be stopping at Old Oak Common. The opportunity that is being sold by the rail industry, and has been sold by the Government in the very recent past, is thrown into doubt if there is uncertainty about whether all the trains will stop at Old Oak Common, so it seems there is quite a bit of thinking to be done.

I appreciate that the Government are in an imperfect position here. We all are. I suggest that work on the technical studies into the opportunities and economic benefits that we might get in our constituencies and that the nation as a whole might accrue needs to be picked up as soon as possible. I thank the Minister for her response today. I look forward to hearing more in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of Old Oak Common station on rail services to the West and Wales.