National Networks National Policy Statement

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Once again, the Government seem to be dodging scrutiny. This national policy statement for national networks has significant implications for the delivery of our climate and environment targets, yet rather than giving MPs the opportunity to properly debate it, this Government have, it feels to me at least, rather cynically left the approval of it to the very last minute before the Easter recess, when many colleagues have already returned to their constituencies. There are barely 10 people here in the Chamber this afternoon.

There are many concerns, in my view, about this particular statement, but I wish to focus in my brief intervention on the climate and nature consequences. As the Minister is well aware, when the review of the NPS was announced in July 2021, it was explained by the then Secretary of State on the basis that the 2014 NPS predated the UK’s commitment to net zero by 2050, the sixth carbon budget and the transport decarbonisation plan.

Aligning the NPS with our climate targets is, of course, absolutely essential, not least because about 10% of the UK’s CO₂ emissions come from driving on the strategic road network and, according to the National Audit Office, transport-related emissions between 1990 and 2022 were reduced by just 11%—the lowest of any sector. There is a real problem here and, frankly, this policy statement fundamentally fails to rise to the occasion and to the challenge that that poses.

In its 2023 progress report to Parliament, the Committee on Climate Change recommended what it called

“a systematic review of all current and proposed road schemes”,

with only those that

“meaningfully support cost-effective delivery of Net Zero and climate adaptation”

to be taken forward. Perhaps the Minister can explain to me why his Department has refused to undertake any assessment, and why the NPS essentially reverts to the current pre-net zero carbon test. In the absence of such a review, can he explain how he plans to close the gaping delivery gap when it comes to cutting transport emissions?

Just last week, the Green Alliance think-tank published the latest update of its net zero policy tracker, which revealed that transport accounts for 70%—yes, 70%—of the overall policy gap for delivering the fifth carbon budget, so this is a huge issue, with 37% of the required emission cuts having absolutely no policy set out for them. Crucially, Green Alliance suggests that measures such as reviewing road building and redirecting funding into public transport would help to close the policy gap, so why is it not in this plan?

Rather than making our constituents ever more dependent on private cars, this NPS should have set out the need for bold rail and urban transport upgrades. It should have been about levelling up public transport outside London and improving cross-country rail. The first priority of the transport decarbonisation plan is modal shift, yet the NPS has no target for that. In fact, seven of the eight Department for Transport scenarios on which it is based assume exactly the wrong kind of modal shift—in other words, a shift to cars. Will the Minister explain why the statement does not reference the 2030 target for 50% of urban journeys to be made by active travel?

Looking at our environmental targets, it is profoundly disappointing that the NPS fails to set out the implications of the new Environment Act 2021 targets at the strategic or scheme level. It is just not good enough to simply have due regard to some of the targets.

Not only is this NPS unclear—as observed by Professor Stephen Glaister, former chair of the Office of Rail and Road and director of the RAC Foundation, who told MPs that

“I do not see clarity in that draft myself”

but it fundamentally fails to set out a new direction of travel to ensure the delivery of our climate and environmental targets. In the age of climate crisis, we need more than passing references to net zero and muddled attempts to justify the roads programme. We need urgent and bold action to decarbonise the transport system. This statement clearly does not provide that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend and co-Minister, and partner in optimism—I think that is the best way of putting it—is addressing some of those points.

There was further criticism in relation to the issue of climate change. I would gently push back: clearly, there has been a lot of change in Government policy since the national networks national policy statement was designated in 2015, particularly the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050. The transport decarbonisation plan, published in 2021, set out how transport’s contribution to net zero will be delivered, and the Environment Act 2021 introduced a more stringent approach to environmental protection and opportunities for enhancement of the natural environment. We have also seen the publication of road investment strategy 2 and the integrated rail plan, as well as support for rail freight, including the announcement of the rail freight growth target in December 2023. The NNNPS has been reviewed to reflect those changes in Government policy and to remain a robust framework for decision making on nationally significant infrastructure project schemes. Clearly, there are ongoing challenges in certain courts to the development of roads, and we await the decisions of those courts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) tempted me to become the Home Secretary. As we all know, the chances of that are our old friends slim and none, but I will take up with the Home Secretary the question of whether there should be a population growth assessment.

I thank all colleagues for their contributions today.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

No. I genuinely commend the NNNPS, which is a mighty piece of work, to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House approves the National Policy Statement for National Networks, which was laid before this House on 6 March.

Points of Order

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I was about to say that the hon. Gentleman might want to consider raising the issue with Ministers, but that has already happened. I am grateful to the Minister, and I am sure that the issue will be considered between the two of them.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting my urgent question, but do you have any advice on what can be done when a Minister simply refuses to answer a single question and essentially abuses the procedures of the House? I asked 12 questions in good faith. The Minister was on her feet for 49 seconds, during which time we learned that the Secretary of State is at COP, that there is a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and that the Minister’s granddaughter cares a lot about the planet. That is all very fascinating but it did not answer a single one of my questions. How can we do our jobs as Members holding the Government to account when Ministers can stand at the Dispatch Box for 49 seconds and not answer a single question on an issue deemed worthy of an urgent question?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, but I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers. I believe the Minister would like to say something.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I thank the Minister for that response. Both the hon. Lady and the Minister have put their views on the record. I am sure that there will be further opportunities after the summit for the issues to be discussed.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not want to prolong this exchange, but I will allow a very brief point.

[Caroline Lucas]

On the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and just now by the Minister, they will know that there is one person representing my party and I cannot be in two places at once—I am working on it! There are 350 Conservative Members, and just one Back Bencher was at the debate last week. I suggest that they look at getting their own house in order before criticising this side.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

This is getting way beyond anything resembling a point of order, so we should move on swiftly.

Bill Presented

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Kemi Badenoch, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Oliver Dowden, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Alex Chalk, Secretary Michelle Donelan, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Mel Stride and Secretary Alister Jack, presented a Bill to provide for the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under, or in connection with, schemes or other arrangements to compensate persons affected by the Horizon system and in respect of other matters identified in legal proceedings relating to the Horizon system.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 16) with explanatory notes (Bill 16-EN).

MOTs: Increased Particulate Matter Testing

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sheerman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and he is absolutely right; I will address his point during my remarks.

Increased particulate matter testing during the MOT would ensure that we identified faulty DPFs that are not picked in the current testing regime. I am pleased to see, from the Government’s open consultation on the MOT, which was published last week, that the Government want to adopt particulate number testing.

As chair of the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality, I have been campaigning on this issue for a long time, and it looks as though we are making some progress at last. If the Government are looking for a legislative vehicle, my Motor Vehicle Tests (Diesel Particulate Filters) Bill is due for Second Reading on 24 March. I am very happy to share it, and all credit for it, with the Minister.

Before I speak more about changes that we can make to the MOT, it is worth dwelling on the life-changing harmful effects of air pollution, which my Bill would help to mitigate. It is estimated that up to 36,000 people die prematurely each year from the effects of air pollution in our country. The total cost to the NHS and social care will be £1.5 billion by 2025 and £5.1 billion by 2035.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a really important point. He will know that today would have been the birthday of Ella Kissi-Debrah, the child who tragically died aged nine, and who was the first person in this country to have air pollution as the cause of death on her death certificate. He will also know that I am trying to pass a Bill on clean air. Does he agree that the Government’s targets for PM_2.5 are utterly unambitious, and that they ought to adopt the target that the World Health Organisation put forward in 2021 of 5 mg per cubic metre?

[Mr Sheerman]

I was in a statutory instrument Committee with the hon. Lady only yesterday. I can assure her that we have the same intention for the Government, and I totally agree that the Government’s ambition—and the ambition of all of us—has to be raised.

The total cost to the NHS and social care of this plague of dirty, filthy air will be extreme. The cost of inaction is fatal to people up and down our country and the services that they rely on. Reducing particulate matter in the atmosphere must be a public health priority. Particulate matter is made up of tiny, invisible solids and liquids that can permeate our bodies. It has a harmful impact on human health, and mainly comes from vehicles, plant equipment and industry.

Mr Hollobone, you are too young to remember the 1950s and the smog. People took action about smog because they could see it and smell it. It was everywhere, and it was disgusting. This is even more poisonous, but it is invisible. That is why the issue is so important.

Two of the key measures are PM_2.5 and PM₁₀—in other words, bits of matter that are smaller than 2.5 or 10 micrometres in diameter. I am sorry that this is a bit technical, but the danger of such small matter is that it can enter our bloodstream, which causes irreversible damage to our respiratory system and our other organs. That was the case for those 36,000 individuals in the UK this year—and every year—whose premature deaths are attributed to air pollution. It has also been known to contribute to asthma and a variety of breathing difficulties.

Many of us have the privilege of hearing astoundingly good visiting speakers in this place. Sir Stephen Holgate addressed a group of us who care about air pollution. I remember sitting up when he said that not only do these dreadful things happen to pregnant women, children and the elderly, but these impurities in the air accelerate the ageing process. That galvanised me into keen interest. Air pollution has life-changing consequences for everyone, from children to the elderly. The Australian Government have found that elderly adults are more likely to be affected by unclean air. It can cause strokes, heart disease and lung disease.

Air pollution harms people in every community in the country, including us, right here on the parliamentary estate. Since June, I have been recording air pollution in Parliament with a handheld air quality monitor and a large state-of-the-art device in my office on the fifth floor of Portcullis House. Air pollution on the parliamentary estate is consistently above the World Health Organisation’s recommended limit. The average level of PM_2.5 on the estate was 5.3 micrograms per cubic centimetre. That is above the World Health Organisation’s recommended limit of 5.

More worryingly, there were significant spikes; the highest ever reading came in at 8.65 micrograms per cubic centimetre and, during the summer heat, there was a 14-day period when average daily levels of PM_2.5 remained at 5.3 or above. That is remarkable. In my office, nitrogen dioxide levels were, on average, four times above the WHO guidelines. In the entire monitoring period, nitrogen dioxide was never at a safe level. [Interruption.] Excuse me for two seconds, Mr Hollobone. I have a very dry mouth due to a medical condition, so your patience is much appreciated.

Much of the blame for air pollution on the estate and across the country lies with vehicles and the pollution that they pump out, often because of faulty diesel particulate filters. However, there are chinks of daylight and good news, as the country moves slowly in the right direction. In 2014 and 2018, MOT tests became marginally more rigorous to ensure the proper working of these filters. However, we still have progress to make on this issue. The debate is topical, as the Department for Transport released its consultation last week. I am glad the Government have recognised the need for further progress in emissions testing, and that they understand that particulate number testing is the right thing to do. Governments across Europe have successfully implemented these tests: the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and Belgium have all adopted the higher standards.

The Dutch are making great progress, using a very sensitive particulate technology, set at 250,000 particles per cubic centimetre, which is much tougher. We have 10 times as many vehicles with problems with particulates than in the Netherlands. Considering that the UK has more than 10 times more diesel vehicles on the road than the Dutch, it is plain to see that we would make significant progress if we followed our European partners.

Lastly, I ask the Minister to share any data his Department has prepared on the cost of introducing the testing. We know that there will be an expense, and that testing centres and garages will have to bear it. However, the equipment is now not that expensive and it is getting cheaper. We also know that there will be an individual cost to cover a more rigorous MOT. We believe in that investment, whether it comes from the Government with direct support or grants, or from the vast vehicle manufacturers across Europe that could contribute.

The studies I have seen demonstrate that fit-for-purpose monitoring is available and affordable. Additionally, making the test stricter will result in more failed vehicles, which will be a problem. However, in that transition we will see real change. We will take old and more polluting vehicles off the roads for good, and replace them with electric, and even hydrogen, vehicles, which will be much healthier for all of us. As we wait for the next steps of the MOT consultation, I urge the Minister to follow through on his Department’s ambitions.

Particulate matter testing in the MOT would make an enormous difference in the fight to reduce air pollution. In our new year reception for the Westminster commission, it was an honour to hear from Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) just mentioned, whose daughter Ella was the first person in the UK to have air pollution registered as their cause of death. Today would have been Ella’s 19th birthday, and I am honoured that we have had the opportunity to remember her.

As a father and grandfather, I find it impossible not to be moved by Ella’s story—a young child whose life was taken far too early. Sadly, Ella is not the only one; there are many more children like her who are currently at risk from the toxic fumes engulfing our urban centres. It is for people like Ella that the Government must follow through on their proposal to tackle the filthy air that is so poisonous and harmful. I spoke last week in Harrogate with a professor of chemistry from York University, who said that if we want to know where people are breathing in the worst, most poisonous air, we must look at the poorest areas of our country.

Air pollution is an invisible, insidious, silent killer, and we have a unique opportunity now to make a small change that would make a great difference. I say to the Minister and other colleagues, let us take this step together and move closer to achieving a goal, which we could share across the House: that our children, grandchildren, friends, family and loved ones are united in their desire for the inalienable right to breathe clean air.

Decarbonising Aviation

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered decarbonising aviation.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I thank colleagues for taking the time to participate in this important debate, which my constituents, and no doubt those of all Members, will be watching with interest. My constituents in Putney are under the flightpath and they have plenty of opportunity to have a close connection with planes.

If we are to achieve our net zero ambition and turn the tide in the fight against climate change, we need to fight on many fronts. Aviation is a front we simply cannot retreat from. I am sure the Minister is ready with a list of the ways in which sustainable aviation fuel is going to save the aviation industry, but I hope to hear more than that: about how we can incentivise alternative ways to travel, or not travel, and a new commitment to look again at Heathrow expansion, as it is not compatible with the decarbonisation strategy published in July. Sustainable aviation fuel alone will not mean that we can head off into a new era of guilt-free flying. We must also have a reduction in flights and an associated increase in public transport, if we are to achieve net zero at the necessary speed.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she agree that one of the best ways of decarbonising aviation is by reducing demand and that one of the most effective ways of doing that would be through a frequent flyer levy? Given that just 15% of people take 70% of flights, a frequent flier levy would be a fair and effective way of reducing aviation demand.

[Fleur Anderson]

I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to look at a range of ways to tackle carbon in the aviation industry. I am disappointed that the “Decarbonising Transport” paper does not include measures such as the one that she has recommended. Too often, sustainable aviation fuel is used to give the illusion of environmental action, but there is a danger of greenwashing because of an over-optimistic assessment of how quickly we can scale up alternative fuel use and how sustainable these fuels really are.

The aviation industry is vital and valued for travel, jobs, trade and connecting us to the world, but it is also responsible for about 7% of global warming and is, mile for mile, the most damaging way to travel for the climate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), my constituency neighbour, on securing this really important debate. As her constituency neighbours mine, I obviously share many of her concerns about the flightpath, Heathrow expansion and the impact that unrestrained aviation growth might have on the health and welfare of people—not just my constituents, but people across the country.

I can probably do no better than to illuminate further some of the points that the hon. Member has already made so well. I will start with the Government’s jet zero strategy for aviation. She ably pointed out how the delivery of jet zero depends so heavily upon the development of new technology. As she said, what will we do if that technology is not developed? It seems very clear to me, and indeed it was recommended by the Climate Change Committee, that alongside the technological development that we all want to see, either of hydrogen engines or some other form of technology, we really must see some demand management of our airspace, of flights and of aviation.

The last time I had the opportunity to raise this matter with the Prime Minister and to ask him what he wanted to do about the ANPS, I asked him directly if he would amend it to rule out Heathrow expansion. I was very disappointed that he said it was “a private matter”. I do not think that it is a private matter. For all the reasons that the hon. Member for Putney laid out, it is of the utmost importance for everybody across this country that if we are serious about getting to net zero, and if jet zero is going to be a part of that, demand management for aviation has to play a role, because we cannot just depend on the development of new technology. The very first thing we must do, before anything else, is to rule out expansion at Heathrow airport, so I join the hon. Member for Putney and many other MPs—not just across west London, but across the country—in once more asking the Minister to review the ANPS.

However, I am not pessimistic about the possibility of developing new technologies. I have had some really interesting conversations with people who work in this space, and it seems to me that the prospect of hydrogen powering aircraft in the future is not just a very real possibility, but is actually happening. I have also heard tell of electric flights, and have been invited to go on one. I have politely declined so far. I would like that technology to be a little more developed first—I have heard about those heavy batteries.

It seems to me that there is a great opportunity here for the UK to be right at the front of transport technology. We are a developed economy; we are an island, for whom international travel is critical; and we have the technology, the engineering capability and the will to do this. I believe that decarbonised aviation, alongside many of the other technologies that we are developing to meet the challenge of climate change, can be at the forefront of delivering the green jobs that will be so essential to our sustainable economy in the near future.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case about the jet zero strategy. Does she agree that that strategy is overly dependent on carbon offsets, and that increasingly, climate scientists are pointing out that carbon offsetting is actually very limited, given that all sectors in all countries need to get to real zero and there are limitations on how much carbon dioxide forests can absorb? Instead of playing accounting games, we should be treating the climate emergency as a real emergency.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. More and more, I hear people talking about adapting to climate change instead of tackling it, and I am really concerned that people are doing exactly that, or thinking about exactly that: operational solutions to enable us to carry on exactly as we are, rather than tackling the problem at its root. This is not just about climate change; it is about biodiversity in all its forms, and it is so important that we come up with solutions that radically reduce carbon, rather than push it elsewhere and pretend it does not exist.

To sum up, the technological possibilities and what they might mean for our economy and skilled jobs right across the country are really exciting, but the Government must publish a proper strategy for how they plan to get there. If they want to prioritise hydrogen, we should make sure that we focus on green hydrogen, and on making sure that the production of hydrogen continues to be as carbon-free as possible. However, what I really want is for the Government to pursue a strategy of reducing demand alongside developing those technologies, and to take the opportunity offered to us by covid—the enforced changes to working patterns, and the facility we have all now gained for using Zoom for all manner of things, including parliamentary debates—to think about our approaches to travel, to really prioritise the travel that is necessary and to think seriously about how we are going to decarbonise aviation.

HS2

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.

The Government’s response to the petition states that HS2 will be the

“long-lasting legacy for both wildlife and future generations.”

Well yes, it certainly will—a long-lasting legacy of environmental annihilation, eye-watering expense and broken promises.

I want to focus on the environmental harm of HS2, and I would point out that almost 600 Brighton constituents have signed the petition. If a convincing case for a new railway cannot be made on environmental grounds, that shows how fundamentally flawed the scheme must be. We face a climate and ecological emergency, and we need to start acting like we face such an emergency. Only if there are overwhelmingly positive environmental cases for HS2 should it go ahead. Clearly, there are not. However, there are, as we have heard this evening, many genuinely greener alternatives in which such large sums of money could and should be invested within the UK’s transport system. Let me give one more example: the New Economics Foundation estimates that a national rail investment fund of £55.2 billion over the next 10 years—just over half the cost of HS2—including £18.9 billion allocated to the north of England, would help commuters, speed up long-distance journeys, cut carbon emissions and bring benefits to many regions that are not even served by HS2.

On nature, the Government response to the petition says that there will be

“‘no net loss’ to biodiversity”.

Well, even if that were meaningful or credible—frankly, it is neither—it is utterly inadequate. The wildlife trusts have highlighted the fact that ancient woodland is

“by its very nature irreplaceable”,

so an ancient wood that is lost to HS2 is a permanent loss of nature and wildlife, yet 15 hectares of ancient woodland over 400 years old have already been obliterated. It speaks volumes that HS2 keeps no record of the number of trees felled. Can the Minister provide the figure for trees felled? I think that would be interesting.

Finally, on climate, the response by the Department for Transport to the petition claims that HS2

“will play a vital role in delivering the Government’s carbon net zero objectives”,

yet HS2’s own forecasts, even over 120 years, show the project will cause carbon emissions of 1.49 million tonnes. Achieving our climate goals means rapidly decarbonising the transport system, and protecting and restoring habitats such as woodland. HS2 does neither. Frankly, the way in which these decisions are being made does no justice to the seriousness of the situation, given what is at stake with environmental harm. The experience of HS2 shows that we need to change fundamentally our approach to economic decision making and to the criteria for major infrastructure projects. We urgently need to give top priority to the health and wellbeing of people and nature. It is time to stop annihilating nature in the name of short-term financial gain for some rather big construction corporations and the pursuit of infinite economic growth on our finite and fragile planet. The petitioners are right: HS2 should be scrapped.

Airport Expansion

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is right: regional airports and connectivity around the country are key to many parts of the UK, not just the north. I am from Kent, and we are blessed with many airports locally. I have a small airport in my constituency—Rochester airport—and I see how much such airports contribute to the local economy, enabling business growth and enabling people to get around the country and go abroad. In this role, I would like to assess regional capacity, to ensure that all parts of the UK benefit.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

However much Government Members might wish it were otherwise, there is no quick technological fix that will solve this problem. The Committee on Climate Change is really clear that zero-carbon aviation is “highly unlikely” to be feasible by 2050, which means that demand management and, indeed, demand reduction will be essential. Can the Minister set out what steps the Government will take to reduce aviation emissions by reducing the demand for flying—for example, by introducing a frequent flyer levy, which is a fair way of distributing the ability to fly?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady will probably not be a stranger to the fact that this Government are investing in roads and rail, to increase connectivity. This Government have now pledged their commitment to HS2, which is why the Secretary of State is in the north. We have, of course, been carefully considering the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, but transport and the use of airlines by our consumers—our constituents—who want to travel around the country and globally is something that I am not prepared to put a curb on today.

Flybe

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

I recognise what my hon. Friend says. Our network of regional airfields is crucial to our regional connectivity. I am acutely conscious of that and I am looking at all policy options.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Over the coming months it will become ever more apparent that tackling the climate emergency means rapid changes to high-carbon sectors and that aviation must decrease, not increase. Instead of bailing out polluting companies every time there is a crisis, and, in this instance, doing so in a way that is going to increase emissions, does the Minister agree that the Government should instead be developing just transition plans for high-carbon industries, including retraining workers in new sustainable jobs, involving unions and local communities, and, in this case, enhancing rail connectivity?

[Paul Maynard]

I think the hon. Lady overlooks what we seek to do to ensure that aviation plays its role in reaching net zero by 2050. As I have said, we will consult on our response to the Committee on Climate Change. The Minister with responsibility for future transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), is working hard looking at how to diversify the plane market, and we are bringing forward a transport decarbonisation plan. In the Department, we are informed with good ideas about how we can decarbonise transport.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Absolutely; I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We have delayed on this for much too long, and it is time we got on with the job.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Aviation already has a uniquely generous allocation for climate emissions, which basically means that passenger numbers can grow by up to 60% by 2050, but according to the Secretary of State’s own Department, passenger numbers are expected to grow by 93% by 2050 even before expansion at Heathrow, so when is he going to start looking at demand-side regulation—perhaps including a frequent flyer levy—rather than simply carrying on growing more and more supply? Or is he content to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and basically cover the whole country in concrete?

[Michael Fabricant]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have expected better from the hon. Lady. She claims that I have said that I want to cover the whole of the country in concrete. Not only is that deliberately untrue but I think she should withdraw that falsehood.

Confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

I could not agree more. We are seeing instance after instance. It is evidence, if any more were needed, that the system has completely and utterly failed and needs to be completely revised. Why are train companies allowed to retain their franchise despite repeated failures? Northern and GTR should be stripped of their contracts. Labour said very clearly that franchise failure should mean forfeit. It is clear that the Department for Transport has failed to ensure that train companies fulfil the terms of their contracts.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only GTR that should lose its franchise? The Secretary of State should have his office removed as well because this is a façade of a franchise. We know that Ministers are behind it, and it is Ministers who should be held accountable for the fact that passengers in places such as Preston Park in Brighton are losing their jobs, cannot spend time with their kids in hospital and are having their lives wrecked.

[Andy McDonald]

I agree entirely. The Government seem to want to have control and intervene, but they do not want to take responsibility. GTR should have been stripped of its contract years ago for running the worst rail service in modern times. The company has repeatedly been found in breach of its contract as well as overseeing toxic industrial relations and poor customer service. Had the Government heeded Labour’s call to strip the company of its franchise, the recent disruption could have been avoided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I will make some progress before I give way again.

I would like to update the House on how the industry is working to improve the reliability of services. On 4 June, Northern introduced a temporary timetable, including a targeted reduction in trains by around 6% to achieve a more deliverable service. Even with this reduction in service, there are still more trains running across the whole Northern network than before the timetable change in May. That does not mean that there are not individual areas that still have very significant problems, and I am very conscious that many passengers are still experiencing significant disruption, but there are signs that the service is stabilising. Over the first two weeks of the reduced timetable, 80% of trains arrived on time and 4% were cancelled or arrived significantly late, which is a significant improvement. This is not nearly good enough, but it is an improvement on what was happening before the introduction of that timetable. Northern is planning to run the timetable until the end of July, when it will review and, we hope, significantly increase the number of trains running, while ensuring continued stability. Stability is the most important thing for passengers so that they know what is expected, when trains are going to come and that they are going to come.

Officials from the Rail North Partnership—it is worth reminding Labour Members that this franchise is managed as a partnership between my Department and the leaders of local authorities in the north. Decisions about it are taken by the partnership board of Transport for the North, and it has been considering how to respond—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says it does not exist. This is the most devolved franchise in England. Responsibilities for managing and overseeing the franchise are shared through the board of Transport for the North—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like it, but that is the truth.

GTR is also working to increase the predictability and reliability of journeys on its network. It is working actively to reduce the number of on-the-day cancellations and is now updating its timetables a week ahead. There is clearly still a lot more to do. In too many places, there is very significant disruption, but we have to move things in the right direction. Alternative travel arrangements are in place—for example, for passengers on the Brighton main line, who can have their Thameslink tickets accepted on Gatwick Express. Next month, GTR will introduce a full temporary timetable across its network as the next step to improve reliability and performance for passengers. This will allow GTR to slowly build up services to the new full timetable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I will talk about compensation in a moment. I have been watching the performance carefully, and there have been some signs of stabilisation, as I say, but there is still a long way to go. [Interruption.] As I just set out, we have seen some stabilisation. I have been looking at the services day by day, and there is still a way to go, but the decline we saw after the timetable change has at least been arrested, and as the hon. Lady herself admits, there have been some improvements, although not nearly enough. I accept that, and I will take away her comments and look carefully at her line again, but there has been at least a stabilisation.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

rose—

Airports National Policy Statement

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the disappointments recently has been a reduction in the number of flights from Leeds Bradford airport to Heathrow. Creating more capacity at Heathrow will create greater competition and allow new entrants to regional markets, and will allow some of the routes that have not been there in recent years to reappear.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It beggars belief that the words “climate change” did not pass the Secretary of State’s lips once during the statement. In his Department’s most recent aviation forecast there is no scenario in which expansion at Heathrow is compatible with meeting the Government’s own commitments under the Climate Change Act 2008 to limit air passenger growth to 60% by 2050. And those same projections imply that if this runway is approved aviation will take up over half of the UK’s entire carbon budget by 2050, which is absurd. Given that the Committee on Climate Change has said “Don’t use international offsetting,” can the Secretary of State explain how on earth this proposal is compatible with our climate change objectives?

[Chris Grayling]

As the hon. Lady will know, the Airports Commission looked at this issue very carefully and formed the view that we could meet our climate change objectives and expand Heathrow. Of course in the aviation sector there is a transformation of the technology that means aircraft are much more fuel-efficient and therefore emit less, so technology is helping us move towards achieving the right approach.