Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

Baggy Shanker Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

Just in my own region of east Anglia, Greater Anglia’s franchise renewal bid rested on a complete renewal of all rolling stock. The franchise turnover every seven or eight years—let us call it every 10 years—gave an opportunity for bids to come in that said, “We are not just carrying on with the status quo; we’re not just shaving off a bit here and adding a little bit there; this is our bold renewal programme.” That is what Greater Anglia did, and it really has transformed the passenger experience in the east of England.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I think this is an opportune moment to ask a question, as a Derby MP with Alstom in my constituency— the only place in the UK now where a train can be designed, engineered, manufactured and tested. Under the previous Government, Alstom had to make thousands of redundancies because there was just no certainty about work and there were delays on various projects. Can the hon. Member explain why the previous Government did not take any steps to come up with a rolling stock strategy?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for standing up for the jobs in his constituency, which is something we all need to do. I cannot speak for the actions of the Government before I was even elected as a Back-Bench MP, but we are certainly looking to improve. I would be the first person to say that the status quo ante was capable of improvement. Privatisation did bring many benefits to the railways, particularly in encouraging innovation and focus on the customer, leading to the increase in passenger numbers, which I have already spoken about in previous sittings, but was it perfect? Of course not.

As has been trailed by the Government, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redesign and improve our approach to the railways, and I think that taking a long-term approach to rolling stock investment and creating this framework would be taking advantage of that opportunity to try to improve predictability for the supply sector—for Alstom, but also for Siemens and other manufacturers as well.

New clause 36 would require GBR to publish and keep under annual review a 15-year rolling stock investment framework that sets out future needs for new and existing trains. That includes—this is important—not just the replacement of trains but refurbishment, digital upgrades, decarbonisation and accessibility improvements. It would establish how private investors could finance rolling stock and related upgrades, promote energy-efficient technologies such as battery, hydrogen and hybrid traction, and set expectations for competitive, innovative and, importantly, predictable procurement. The framework must align with GBR’s business plan and control period funding, which are two very sensible requirements, and it must also provide transparency on procurement volumes and timelines, explain changes to plans and show how private investment will be used to reduce whole-life costs, improve train quality and support jobs in the UK rail supply chain.

The Government have thrown the sector into a period of uncertainty—that is inevitable with large-scale redesigns like the ones we are going through at the moment. My concern is that the way in which they have chosen to do this, through a process of drifting nationalisation before knowing the details of its replacement, has exacerbated that uncertainty and extended it over a prolonged period. As the hon. Member for Derby South has already noted, we are already seeing that uncertainty in the supply chain and the manufacturing base.

There is uncertainty—that is the problem. This is a shell Bill; it does not have the answers, and it does not give any confidence to industry that things will be better in the future. It relies on a whole raft of provisions in the 19 documents to which we have referred to time and again, but they do not exist. We do not know whether things will get better or worse, and neither does the industry. There is no supporting documentation on how GBR will function in practice. I am not sure the Government even know that yet, and they really ought to have done better than this. New clause 36 would point them in the right direction, and I certainly look forward to pressing it to a Division, should the opportunity arise.

New clause 37 would increase accountability by setting out a reporting and accountability framework for Great British Railways. The new clause states:

“Great British Railways must publish a business plan each year”,

which we have already considered, and it dictates:

“The business plan…must include…a summary of activities that Great British Railways intends to undertake during the following year”

and

“how these activities will support the delivery of the Rail Strategy”.

At the end of the year, GBR would be required to produce a second report setting out its progress against the business plan objectives, the first of which is passenger experience—we all know the Government substantially ignore passenger experience at the moment, apart from reliability in short trains, and have just brushed the other aspects under the carpet. The other objectives include

“freight growth…accessibility…passenger growth”,

which is also ignored by the Government in the Bill as drafted,

“integration with housing and local transport”

and

“the long-term infrastructure and service improvement.”

The ORR must assess GBR’s performance against the key performance indicators set out in new clause 2, which we have already debated but not yet voted on. If the ORR finds any material underperformance, it must give notice to the Secretary of State, who must publish a written response. This general approach is very business focused; it simply asks that GBR sets out what it is planning to do at the start of the year, and then having worked through the year, there is a process for GBR to mark its homework at the end of the year. Has GBR done what it said it would do? If it has not, the spotlight is on. It is also being assessed by the ORR, which retains its role as an independent expert adjudicator that is trusted by all parts of the rail sector.

Perhaps the best thing is that, in response to that, GBR must also set out what it will do to rectify any underperformance, and it must lay a report before Parliament and make a statement. The new clause would add critical levels of parliamentary and public scrutiny to GBR, allowing both to hold this new organisation to account, which we believe is paramount when such vast amounts of taxpayers’ money will be used. The current Bill is woefully short on accountability. It lacks strong incentives to encourage GBR to perform, to be held to account and to answer for its actions—or lack of action.

This all feels a little too comfortable. We have a nationalised industry reporting to officials from the Department for Transport, and it is not focusing on the experience of customers and passengers, passenger growth or all the other imperatives of rail in the future. The Minister will of course tell us that none of that is necessary. However, with the greatest respect, direct experience of running a business tells us that we need to design in strong incentives—this is crucial; it is not primarily a political point but a trying to improve this Bill point—so that GBR is inclined to focus on the right objectives, without having to respond to external direction. These new clauses would help to point GBR in the right direction. I look forward to the Minister’s support.

Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

Baggy Shanker Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

I will turn in a moment to the specific points that the shadow Minister raises around the chief executive, but I think I share his views on the importance of GBR’s compliance with its fundamental functions and with the law. That is why amendments 15 and 18 are peculiar—they do not recognise GBR needing to be able to have enforcement through that particular route.

Amendments 14 and 16 both relate to the transparency of directions. Amendment 14 would require directions to be laid before Parliament, but we believe that is unnecessary as provisions in the Bill already require directions issued under this power to be published, and Parliament has the power to call the Secretary of State to account should it take the view that more information is required.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alec. The Minister is quite eloquently setting out why some of these amendments are not needed. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, set out earlier why they were needed, but also referred to problems that may happen in the future. It is difficult to write a Bill while trying to tackle problems that may or may not happen in the future.

The fact remains that rail reform failed to happen during 14 years of Conservative Government. The previous Rail Minister admitted that the Government failed to bring in the necessary reform. We had 10 Rail Ministers, I think—correct me if I am wrong—in 14 years. That was not just a failure to bring in a Bill; it failed passengers, railways and our workers who support the railways. Is it not time that we crack on, pass the Bill and deliver the improvements that this industry so greatly needs?

Railways Bill (Second sitting)

Baggy Shanker Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

We can set that out a little later, probably in the evidence that I give, but thank you all very much. I will let other Members ask questions.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q In the existing framework, open access applications are routinely refused due to lack of capacity, or perceived lack of capacity. That pitches passengers against freight all the time. What is good about that system that you would want to keep? What would you like to see change?

Steve Montgomery: The system at the moment is independent. The regulator evaluates, takes all the different evidence from the applicant and from Network Rail on how much capacity is there. It takes all that evidence and does an abstraction test to make sure that an open access application is not abstracting revenue from the existing operators. That independence is there, and it allows the regulator to evaluate that and make its decision. In the last year, it has granted some applications and refused others.

The system works—maybe not to everyone’s satisfaction, but it does work and it is independent. Under GBR, it will be a huge public sector body with no real regulation. Looking at it at the moment, it is difficult to see where that independent regulation is, looking at the industry and holding GBR to account. Capacity is one of the areas we need to look at, and likewise access charges, where that comes into play.

[Baggy Shanker]

Q Are you saying that we do not need any changes in this area?

Steve Montgomery: We can modify it, but we need that comfort that it will be evaluated fairly and not have the constraints of GBR putting everything in front of it, saying, “We might use those paths in the future again”. We cannot have that; we need certainty. As I said earlier, we need the opportunity to allow investment in the railway. If private sector investment is coming in while there are paths sitting there not being used, that means that we are not funding the industry up to the capacity that it may have.

John Thomas: There are no protections in the Bill for open access operators. As Keir said, freight is mentioned at least 100 times and there is a freight growth target that GBR must have regard to, but there is nothing on open access. There is an inherent conflict when you have a body that will be granting access to its competitors. We would rather see the Office of Rail and Road still making those decisions. We accept that that is unlikely, because that is not the direction of travel from the Government, so as a minimum we think that a fair and non-discriminatory provision in relation to GBR decisions will help.

We think, as I said earlier, that the provision for ORR to have regard to the benefits of competition in hearing appeals will help. It will not be as sufficient as today. This is not part of the Bill, but we think that the access and use policy ought to carry on with the not primarily abstractive tests. It is not just because of lack of capacity that decisions have been rejected in the past; as Steve said, it is the revenue abstraction test as well. There is nothing to stop GBR increasing test in terms of the level of abstraction that is allowed before not granting access to open access operators. There is a lot to be worked through in the access and use policy to protect open access operators but, as I say, there is nothing whatsoever in the Bill to protect them at the moment.

Maggie Simpson: We recognise that the current system is not perfect, but my members want to understand two things: first, if they are running a train today that their supply chain relies on, that they can reasonably expect to be running that train in the future. Today, the ORR would have a presumption of continuity—forgive me, this is not in the Bill—so if we came to the end of an access contract they would let the trains go into the next one. The infrastructure capacity plan process is different: it throws everything up in the air. People are really worried that they will commit and invest against a service that their supply chain relies on, and then in future something else will be judged to be better value and they will be taken off the network.

Secondly, when people are looking at investments, whether that is a new port or a new terminal—a new interchange might be a £1 billion investment—they need to have a sense that the capacity for the trains coming out of that interchange will be there when they need to use it. The current system has more capacity for that. That is why clause 63 worries people, because they think that that capacity could be taken away from those trains.

John Thomas: Clause 71 is also a real concern for us, because it allows the Secretary of State to establish regulations to amend or even abolish access rights or access contracts. That seems quite a draconian power to us. We have been assured that that is not the intention, and that the intention is to use that power to amend contracts so that they are operable in the new structure. Our view is that the clause should be limited to enable contracts to be operable in the new structure, and not to give the Secretary of State unilateral powers to amend or abolish access contracts or access rights. Again, that will make private sector operators really nervous about future investment. I agree with Maggie: I get no impression that the current Administration would ever use that clause—but, if you are never going to use it, why have it in there?

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

Q A brief question from me: in this morning’s session my colleague Ms Smith highlighted 19—and counting—different documents, plans and strategies that are referred to here. This Committee has not had any sight of drafts of them yet and I am conscious that nor will you, but they will be fundamental to how this works or does not work in practice. Recognising that you have not seen the documents, what assessment would you make of the Bill’s provisions on how, for example, the access and use and the infrastructure capacity policies will be produced? How should they be produced to properly reflect both the needs of an effective railway and the multiple groups with a stake in this? How can they be framed to ensure that GBR, which will essentially be a monopoly provider with a weakened regulator, is meaningfully held to account for what it puts in those policies?

Maggie Simpson: My members and I are working collaboratively with Network Rail colleagues and DFT colleagues to try to ensure that those policies and plans are going to be written in the right way. It is fair to say there is a lot of work still to be done, particularly on capacity allocation. On track access charges we feel a little more comfortable with the Bill provisions and that we will get there, but on capacity allocation there is a huge amount of work yet to be done.

Some of that work is practical stuff around the interplay between capacity plans on different routes, regions and sections of network, which could be quite big or quite small, and how we wind a freight train through what could be 10 or 20 different infrastructure capacity plans. There is a lot of work to do. There are great people working on this, so let us hope that they get there.

In terms of how GBR is held to account, that is a macro question for this Committee across a lot of different aspects. There are lots of powers in the Bill that you will have seen going in both directions between GBR, the Secretary of State, the regulator and so on. Our focus is on that appeals function, which I have already spoken about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

Q You have made some really good points about the complexity of rail and the criticality of the relationship between renewals, electrification, signalling and rolling stock, and all the interfaces and dependencies between them. At risk of putting words in your mouth—hopefully I am reflecting back what you said—would you agree that some of those interfaces and the decisions around them have been, historically, a bit suboptimal? In that context, do you think there is enough in the Bill that recognises that and gets us to a better future? In particular, should the Bill explicitly state that there is a need for a rolling stock strategy? I know the Department for Transport says that it is making one, but it is not specifically in there. Do you have any thoughts about how the Bill deals with all those issues?

Darren Caplan: I think the question was about whether it is suboptimal at the moment. Yes, it is. We have a control period that lasts for five years and looks at operations, maintenance and renewal. That does not include enhancements. That was taken out in 2018, 2019, so enhancements have been reduced. It did not include major projects; we are very supportive of the announcements on East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail, but that is not part of the overall plan. There is no rolling stock pipeline or strategy—we have called for that, but we are still waiting to hear back. There is nothing about decarbonising the network, or having an electrified network—when you have that, it is stop-start and boom-or-bust.

This is an opportunity to get it together. Back in 2024, we called for a long-term strategy for rail, and we are positive that it is in the GBR plans, so we support the long-term strategy and reviews. I totally agree with these guys that we need to bring more than just ORR work into that pipeline and have a 30-year purview. However, there is quite a lot of work to do on it, and the Bill does not quite capture that yet, but it is a start.

Rob Morris: From my perspective, I totally agree that it is currently sub-optimal. Decisions have been made in the past where things have been switched on and then switched off—electrification is a good example. With GBR, we now have a great opportunity to look at the whole system as a fully integrated system, so that we can manage the risks and the performance all together. That suggests that there will now be an opportunity for greater clarity of thinking, reduction in costs and much more efficient execution of the whole system.

The important thing is that we have a review of the long-term strategy in regular periods to make it transparent—perhaps every five years, so that the supply chain can set itself up for the next five years. What has happened in the past is that, when there has been a change of approach, it has not been communicated and it has created a vacuum. When there is a vacuum, there is uncertainty and we will not invest in those sorts of things. Then, when we restart things such as an electrification programme, it costs significantly more than if you had a steady-state approach to it.

Malcolm Brown: I agree that it has been sub-optimal. I think the clue is in the title; it is a rail system, and therefore a system has a number of components that we require to work as one. For example, I will invest £1 billion in new trains that we have made in Derby, and then those trains are getting maintained. These are state-of-the-art trains—they are absolutely brand new—but they are being maintained in sheds that were built in the Victorian era. That is not how I would like to look after my assets. I would like a holistic, full-system approach that takes these things into account. It cannot be perfect, but there is a lot more that we can do. The one word of caution I would give is this: be careful we don’t try to boil the ocean. We cannot have answers to everything, and nor should we expect the long-term rail strategy to have them.

Lastly, it is a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, and if it comes through, that is a major step forward. There is no point in devising electric trains with pantographs and batteries if we do not have the infrastructure to support that, either in maintenance or passenger service. Those two combined are utterly critical, and it is certainly in the title.

Rob Morris: May I add one comment to what Malcolm said? That old-system thinking with GBR opens up opportunities for the supply chain—ROSCOs and OEMs like ourselves. We can provide the optimum infrastructural rolling stock solution that also does the best in net zero outcomes for carbon, such as the battery bi-mode trains and discontinuous electrification of new technology that manufacturers like ourselves provide.

[Baggy Shanker]

Q I suppose the crux of this is: do you guys, with your organisations and trade bodies, believe that the creation of GBR will make things better going forward? I am thinking of things like giving stability to what UK rail looks like; being able to invest in infrastructure and rolling stock; collaboration between industry and organisations such as GBRX for innovation and bringing in best practice; and having an investment pipeline to give certainty to what you guys are trying to do to drive your businesses forward—all while making sure UK Rail plc, call it what you like, is in a better position than it is now.

Malcolm Brown: To cut to the chase, yes. Our hope has to be that with GBR—we have talked in this room about the missing building blocks, but our hope is that they all align—we will end up in a better place than we have been, certainly for the past six or seven years.

You referenced GBRX. It is a limb of GBR that does all the very high-tech and signalling aspects. That seems to be working very well. We work closely with it, and we are investing in new technology—for example, on the east coast main line. We have been installing that on trains. It is very much future forward—we are looking into the future. We know that that will not be an immediate change, but we can see in the future that this is—to go back to this point—the direction of travel. It is not a no-regrets bid, but it is something that we have a degree of confidence in.

Rob Morris: To add to that, yes, again the funding ambition and the need that it generates is the fuel for innovation. The one thing I would say, though, is that I am a little concerned about the Bill’s requirement for GBR to do R&D. R&D is a good thing, and we would expect it, but the thing that GBR should not do, perhaps, is to crowd out the R&D that suppliers like ourselves and many others do, both locally here in the UK and globally, because we will potentially end up reinventing the wheel. While we as global suppliers, and our competitors, have wheels to put out all around the world—the wheels are an analogy, of course—they all have functional spokes, and what we do not want to do is to reinvent the shape of that wheel for the UK. That would be abortive, it would cost, it would take time and it would be the taxpayer who pays for it. The provision in the Bill should be about harmonising with the supply chain on what is done within R&D for the benefit of the passenger, the taxpayer and the freight user.

Darren Caplan: We are very concerned. We think that GBR is heading in the right direction, but Members might not be aware of how difficult it is in the supply chain supply sector at the moment. Through Savanta, we conducted a poll at the end of last year, between October and December, of rail business leaders: 64% of them said that the market is going to contract this year, which is up from 48% last year, and last year had been our record low; 62% are freezing or reducing headcount at the moment, with 34% actively laying off staff; and 85% expect a hiatus this year, which is partly because of the time it has taken for GBR to be set up, which is often cited as a reason why there is lack of confidence in the market at the moment. That is in contrast to the international situation: UNIFE, the European trade association, does a global market study, which shows that around the world, rail has grown between 3% and 6% every year.

I know lots of products are out there and things feel positive, but actually our members in the supply sector are feeling that they are in a very difficult place at the moment. We need certainty, and any measures that can help with that. We have already mentioned schedule 2, which does not help at all—it has to be changed, because it makes things less certain—but clause 72 also has potential to deter private investment. That is the regulation to make changes to non-GBR infrastructure facilities and services. It gives the Government the powers to make future changes to legislation by regulation outside a parliamentary vote—so-called Henry VIII powers. That weakens the power of MPs. It will mean that the Government can rewrite the rules about non-GBR networks and how those integrate with the GBR network, including setting conditions of access and charges.

That is for any network, station or track not operated by GBR, which could be High Speed 1, freight terminals, depots—we heard from freight earlier—ports and airports, telecoms and energy assets. They all integrate with the GBR network, and there is a lack of certainty about how they will integrate in the future, which will deter private and third-party investment. One global logistics company would strongly like to see such sites excluded because of the effect that it will have on investing in those assets. If you get rid of schedule 2 and amend clause 72, you can help to create a better situation when it comes to investment.

I have a prop here, which is a chart showing the current investment for renewals in the UK over the past 30 years—you can see that it goes up and down. The situation that we are talking about with GBR makes it less certain. I have another chart here that shows electrification—

[The Chair]

Order. Sorry, Mr Caplan, but props are not allowed.

Darren Caplan: My apologies. The charts show how uncertain the current situation is, and these measures would make it less certain. If we can have the positives for GBR going forward, and get these issues addressed, that will be better for the supply chain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baggy Shanker Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

Certainly. The 40-year-old laws on powered mobility devices will be brought up to date to better support those who use electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters. I can confirm that weight limits form part of the consultation, along with size, speed and usage rules, to better reflect modern technology.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many constituents tell me how fed up they are with the long waiting times for driving tests. By the time they secure a practical test, their theory certificate has expired, forcing them to pay again. What steps will the Minister take to help people who cannot afford to pay for another test?

[Simon Lightwood]

By law, theory tests certificates are valid for two years, for road safety reasons, to ensure that road safety knowledge and hazard perception skills are up to date when the individual takes their practical test. The Government have no plans to change that. My focus remains on driving down test waiting times once and for all, so that we are never in this situation.

Railways Bill

Baggy Shanker Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the House to my interest as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rail.

Rail is in Derby’s DNA. For decades, it has powered our community, moulded our economy and inspired generations of engineers and designers. I see the proof of that week in, week out, whether when meeting fantastic apprentices at Alstom, celebrating Railway 200 by bringing an incredible 40,000 people together in Derby for The Greatest Gathering or hearing how organisations such as Angel Trains, Loram, Porterbrook and many more drive forward innovation right across the sector from Derby.

As a proud Derby MP, I welcome the Bill. At its heart, it stands up Great British Rail and at the heart of Great British Rail is Derby. I was proud to campaign alongside so many others in our city who made the case for Derby to become GBR’s home. I am proud now to work alongside a Government that are committed to delivering GBR in Derby.

Despite our city’s proud rail heritage, manufacturing credentials and exciting future at the heart of UK rail, people travelling by train in Derby face the same challenges as any other commuters up and down the country. They know the frustration of paying through the nose for a train ticket only to find out that their train has been delayed or, even worse, cancelled. They navigate through confusing, fragmented ticketing systems, trying to work out if splitting a ticket will save them extra money or just end up causing havoc. I am pleased that through the Bill, our Labour Government are clearly saying that that is simply not good enough. GBR will put passengers first, whether that is through a new robust passenger watchdog with real standards and teeth or through simplifying and modernising fares with a common-sense, consistent approach.

I also strongly welcome the Bill’s requirement for the Transport Secretary to publish a long-term rail strategy. This will be good for the sector and especially good for Derby because, for far too long, rail has been in a feast and famine cycle, with boom and bust orders, factories standing idle and workers and their families left in limbo. Derby knows this story all too well, unfortunately. In recent years, we have had to fight for the future of Alstom, pulling together across our city and standing shoulder to shoulder with our fantastic trade unions to protect skilled jobs, but this uncertainty is no way to run an industry that thousands of jobs depend upon. We need stability, we need certainty and we need a long-term plan, and that is exactly what this strategy will provide, supporting our rail supply chain, protecting the thousands of jobs that depend on it and giving businesses the confidence to invest in the future. When Britain backs rail, Britain backs Derby and Derby delivers for Britain.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Baggy Shanker Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

Far be it from me to give a different answer from the one the Prime Minister gave. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be looking at rail in detail through the ANPS review and the public transport requirements, in order to have an expanded Heathrow with a third runway that operates successfully.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Providing jobs for 800 people and supporting a further 7,000, East Midlands airport is a fantastic example of how aviation powers regional growth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whether it is through Heathrow expansion or at East Midlands airport, delivering sustainable expansion in aviation is not just about flights, but about delivering jobs, apprenticeships and growth, and about securing Britain’s role as a green aerospace and aviation leader?

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend is right; I know that East Midlands airport plays a particularly important role in air freight, second only to Heathrow. That is something we do not talk about enough, given its importance to the economy, so I welcome the comments he has made.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Baggy Shanker Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

For many years, I commuted by aircraft from Scotland to Dublin—so many years, in fact, that I can still recall there are eight emergency exits on a Boeing 737-800. There are two at the front, two at the rear and four over-wing exits. What a great pity that this Bill does not have an amendment that is an escape slide.

While sustainable aviation fuel sounds wonderful, it is burdened with many inconvenient facts. The first is that there is no SAF production industry at the scale required. While new clause 1 is a bold attempt to jump-start production by repurposing old facilities, it is a jumbo jet of a task. The World Economic Forum estimates that by 2030, global demand for SAF is expected to reach 70 million tonnes per annum—around 4% to 5% of total jet fuel consumption.

Meeting likely demand in just five years requires an additional 5.8 million tonnes of capacity. What is the investment required to reach even that relatively modest goal? The WEF pitches it at somewhere between $19 billion and $45 billion globally. If that does not give our legislative autopilot the warning, “Terrain! Terrain! Pull up!”, then it should do. New clause 1 is unaffordable, whether backed by public or private finance, and I am afraid it is doomed to fail.

It is certain that the vast input costs will result in massively higher costs for passengers and air freight. I support the vital new clause 6, which would force an assessment of the economic impact of this Bill, which I fear will be nothing short of devastating. Some might piously accept fewer flights to the Costas or a little less airfreighted Kenyan mangetout on the dinner table, but making air travel ruinously expensive will have implications for thousands of jobs—millions globally—in not only aviation, but tourism. Many flights are not indulgences, but lifelines. We are an island nation, and many communities within the UK are entirely reliant on air links.

Will Britain—so long the pioneers of aviation, with a history stretching back to the first scheduled international passenger flight and the first jet airliner—be foremost in SAF? Probably not, for mandating SAF is easier than producing it, especially in a country with power prices as exorbitant as ours. Energy bills in Dumfries in my constituency are four times what they are in Dumfries in Virginia in the United States, and they are cheaper still in China.

We need a lot of power to make SAF. Many question its green credentials when so much carbon is generated in its production. Amendment 10 is a bid to explore the serious issues around SAF derived from either organic or synthetic sources. Much is made of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases using SAF sourced from waste fat and oil feedstocks, but, as we have heard, those basic building blocks are in limited supply. That issue is also addressed in, though not solved by, new clause 2. Using crops as feedstock may not reduce greenhouse gases at all, and there are huge implications of turning prime agricultural land and billions of gallons of water over to producing crops for fuel, rather than food. Again, Britain is at a disadvantage. America’s vast corn belt might get involved, but the British bioethanol industry is a warning to us, for it was not able to survive on current targets for the content in road fuel.

Other amendments, including amendment 11, concern themselves with how a revenue certainty mechanism will operate. My concern is that we risk creating a self-licking ice cream—a self-perpetuating system with no purpose other than to sustain itself. This Bill could guarantee moneys that simply offset the costs of manufacturing SAF, which is itself made expensive by green levies. Would it not be better to put what money we have available into aviation excellence, driving up the efficiency of jet engines and airframes? Aviation is already playing its part in reducing its carbon footprint—according to some experts, engine efficiency is already up by as much as 83% from the early days of the de Havilland Comet jet liner. That progress can continue, although super-efficient jets need superalloys to handle the extremes of temperature in their engines, and those require the sorts of rare earths that China is hoovering up. Canada, by the way, has many of the same critical minerals; might we be better off investing in those than subsidising SAF?

If we want really big carbon savings, we ought to look to the sea. Much of what we trade—in and out—goes by sea, and cargo ships are heavily reliant on bunker oil, a tar-like substance with heavy emissions. If we want novel fuels, this island nation should look once more to Tennyson’s “boundless deep”, where the salt-caked smoke stacks belch still. Meanwhile, the wild blue yonder of the skies must not be made inaccessible simply by expensive green dogma.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Aviation is central to our economy and our way of life, whether it is delivering well over 300,000 jobs here in the UK, contributing over £22 billion to our economy, driving inbound tourism, or connecting communities, businesses and families the world over. I am proud of our world-leading aviation sector in Derby and many other places across the UK, and while aviation is an integral part of our economy, it is also one of the most challenging to decarbonise. Despite the scale of the challenge, though, we must keep pushing forward, because—as I have said before, and as I will say again now—without net zero in aviation, there is no net zero, full stop.

To ensure that future generations are able to access the opportunities that air travel can provide, we need to make sure that flying is greener. This Bill does exactly that. It will unlock the potential of UK SAF by delivering the confidence and stability that SAF producers need to continue to turbocharge growth as they drive forward green innovation. I welcome the Bill as a clear statement of intent that this country is absolutely serious about decarbonising the future and future-proofing our world-leading aviation sector. It is the right thing to do, and we must do it.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, and the debate on SAF has been a focus of many of our meetings. As a cover-all, I should declare my interests, having met with AirportsUK, Airlines UK, ADS Group, LanzaJet, Back British SAF, Valero, alfanar and others over the past six months. I also worked in the aviation industry for 16 years prior to being elected. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1 to 5, tabled by my colleagues, and new clause 7. I also encourage the Government to support amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the Conservatives, which would strengthen and improve the Bill and give us the best chance to achieve its targets. I will tell the House why.

In 2023, aviation accounted for 2.5% of global energy-related CO2 emissions; however, when non-CO2 effects are included, its contribution to climate warming increases to approximately 4%. Although that is a small fraction of global emissions, it is not insignificant. However, in my experience, few sectors take their role in bringing down emissions and tackling climate change as seriously as aviation, primarily because fuel burnt and emissions released is money spent.

As other Members have already made clear, decarbonising aviation and achieving net zero carbon UK aviation will require a huge range of different measures. Measures such as Operation Blue Skies, a global contrail avoidance system, will reduce the density of the heat-trapping contrails produced by aircraft, which creates nearly half the overall climate-warming impacts. Continuing improvements in aircraft engine and airframe efficiency are also critical, and that too has been mentioned by others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baggy Shanker Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I know the importance of affordable public transport to people in Britain. I know the importance of the fuel duty freeze that we brought in last year. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will have conversations across Government to protect businesses and the travelling public.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. The cost of car insurance has gone through the roof in recent years, with quoted prices rising on average 82% since 2021. Car insurance is an essential, not a luxury, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle the spiralling costs for drivers in Derby and across the UK. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on what progress her taskforce is making to get a fair deal for drivers when it comes to car insurance?

[Simon Lightwood]

This Government committed in our manifesto to tackle the high cost of motor insurance, and I am pleased to see recent data suggesting that average premiums are falling. The Government’s taskforce, chaired by the Department for Transport and His Majesty’s Treasury, continues to work to identify short and long- term policy actions that may contribute to stabilising or reducing premiums.

Regional Transport Inequality

Baggy Shanker Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for securing this vital debate. In Derby, like many other parts of the country, transport is the glue that holds our community together, but Derby is also a city of makers. We have a unique transport manufacturing heritage to be proud of, and a future to be excited about.

If we are talking about investment in our public transport, however, it is a totally different story. While Derby powers our supply chain, the east midlands has been left lagging behind when it comes to funding our transport infrastructure. Under successive Governments, our region has sat consistently at the back of the queue for investment. In 2023-24, that meant that transport spending in the east midlands was just 54% of the UK average—shockingly, the lowest of any UK region or nation, as we heard earlier. That is not just a number. It is delays, lost opportunities and frustration for people just trying to go about their day to day.

Ask anyone in our community and they will say that they have been stuck on the same congested roads for years, and they have watched vital bus services disappear, as our region has faced the consequences of the deepest bus cuts in the country since 2008. Understandably, people are absolutely fed up. That is why I am proud that this Labour Government, along with our fantastic East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward, are wasting no time turning the page. With a record £2 billion secured earlier this year to tackle congestion and improve connectivity across the east midlands, we are finally starting to put things right.

That is not all. Whether it is moving forward on upgrades to the A38 to end Derby’s traffic gridlock, or the introduction of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, protecting thousands of miles of lifeline routes across our region, progress is being made. There is still lots more to do to put decades of under-investment behind us. Securing projects such as the electrification of the midlands main line would supercharge our region, creating 5,000 jobs, reducing journey times and improving reliability, as well as unlocking over £400 million worth of economic benefit for the region.

To transform our transport infrastructure, we need sustained, long-term funding in our region that, at the very minimum, matches the UK average. I look forward to seeing that delivered through action and investment from a Government who back Derby and the east midlands.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Baggy Shanker Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the House to my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

As a proud advocate of UK aviation, I am pleased to speak in support of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, and I add my thanks to the Aviation Minister for his determination in support of UK aviation and to the Secretary of State for her leadership. By backing industry with a revenue certainty mechanism, the Bill will turbocharge the production of UK SAF, reducing reliance on imports and generating jobs up and down the country. As one of the most carbon-intensive and hardest-to-decarbonise forms of transport, aviation is vital to get right. Alternative and sustainable aviation fuels will help us to safeguard the future of our planet, because without a decarbonised aviation sector, there will be no net zero.

Decarbonising will ensure that future generations can enjoy the opportunities that air travel brings without compromising the health of our planet. It will ensure that our regional economies continue to benefit from the growth that the aviation sector can offer, such as the whopping 6,000 jobs that East Midlands airport supports. In Derby, we are already making bold strides towards our net zero future. I am proud that Rolls-Royce moved quickly to confirm the compatibility of its long-haul aircraft engines, in both the wide body and business jet sector, with 100% SAF usage. The Derby factories will continue to play a significant role in shaping the future of aviation decarbonisation for years to come.

We recognise that decarbonisation will not be without its challenges. Sustainable aviation fuels offer a practical and innovative solution to those challenges, with SAF made from waste emitting a staggering 89% less carbon than burning conventional jet fuel. This is what the SAF Bill recognises. It is a bold and necessary step forwards to secure a sustainable net zero future for aviation. I am proud to support it.