(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberWith permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding the power outage, caused by a substation fire, that impacted on Heathrow airport operations on Friday 21 March.
I begin by acknowledging the disruption to everyone affected by this incident. Many homes, schools and businesses temporarily lost power, some families have had to evacuate their homes, and many thousands have had their travel plans impacted. I thank the firefighters and emergency responders who worked in difficult conditions to put the fire out, as well as Heathrow, the National Grid and all the other public services involved for working so hard to get power back on and people back travelling again. This was an unprecedented event, and we must learn any and all lessons we can to ensure that it does not recur.
Let me begin by setting out what we currently know about the cause of the incident. A large fire broke out at North Hyde substation at 11.30 pm on Thursday 20 March, and was brought under control the following day. Due to the impacts, Heathrow airport announced at 4.30 am on Friday that it would close until midnight that day. Power was restored to domestic customers in a matter of hours, after the operator of the local distribution network, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, redistributed power through other parts of the network.
By comparison, Heathrow is one of the country’s biggest consumers of electricity and requires as much power as a small city. What we know is that there was an unprecedented outage, and that it was not the result of a single point of failure on the electricity transmission or distribution system. The feed from North Hyde substation is one of three supply points to Heathrow, and the fire caused exceptional damage that took the whole substation out of service. The other supply points continued supplying to Heathrow airport throughout the incident.
Heathrow’s view was that that supply was insufficient to ensure the safe and secure ongoing operation of all systems across the whole airport. It proceeded to reconfigure its internal electricity network to enable the resumption of full operations, utilising the other two external supply points. That required hundreds of systems to be safely powered down, and then safely powered up, with extensive testing. The airport has a range of back-up generators and uninterruptible power supplies, including diesel generators, to provide power to essential systems to enable them safely to land planes. Those back-up systems ensured that safety and security systems and protocols were maintained at all times, but they were never designed to support full operation of the whole airport.
By 2.30 on Friday afternoon, Heathrow began restarting systems to ensure that they were safely operating. By 4 pm, the airport was 100% confident that all systems were safely operating across the whole network, and announced that some flights would be able to restart that day. The first flights, from about 6 pm, were so-called positioning flights, which were to get aircraft and crew to the right places to resume normal operations the following day. That was followed by flights diverted to UK and non-UK airports, to allow passengers to be repatriated, and a small number of outbound long-haul flights. Since Saturday, Heathrow has been fully operational, with more than 250,000 passengers able to fly to and from the airport on Saturday. Due to knock-on impacts of the event, there continued to be some delays and cancellations over the weekend.
Overall, the impact of Heathrow’s closure led to over 1,300 flights and more than 200,000 passengers having their flights cancelled or diverted on Friday, and a further 110 cancelled on Saturday. The Government are acutely aware of the need to ensure that passengers are well looked after and their consumer rights protected. This is why UK law ensures that airlines must provide passengers with a refund within seven days, or passengers must be rerouted to their destination under the same conditions. We are closely monitoring to ensure that passengers are properly supported. To support the recovery, my Department temporarily lifted restrictions on overnight flights, to ease congestion. Heathrow and airlines also added extra capacity into the system to help affected passengers. We allowed rail tickets to be used flexibly to help passengers who were not able to use their original tickets.
Regarding the cause of the fire, the Metropolitan police confirmed that the fire is not believed to be suspicious. However, due to the location of the substation and the impact that this incident has had on critical national infrastructure, the Met’s counter terrorism command is leading our inquiries into this matter. This is due to the specialist resources and capabilities within that command, which can assist in progressing the investigation at pace to help minimise disruption and identify the cause. It would not be appropriate to comment further while these investigations continue, but we will of course update the House once it is appropriate to do so.
Although it is positive that electricity supplies were restored quickly, there will be learnings to ensure that we avoid such incidents reoccurring. That is why on Saturday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, working with Ofgem, commissioned the independent National Energy System Operator to urgently investigate the incident. The review will also seek to understand any wider lessons to be learned for energy resilience for critical national infrastructure. NESO has been asked to report back to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero with initial findings within six weeks.
In addition, Heathrow has asked Ruth Kelly, a former Secretary of State for Transport and an independent member of Heathrow’s board, to undertake a review of its internal resilience. The Kelly review will analyse the robustness and execution of Heathrow’s crisis management plans, the airport’s response, and how it recovered the operation.
Colleagues across the House will appreciate that we do not yet know everything there is to know about the incident, but I will try to answer questions from hon. Members in as much detail as possible based on the latest information I have at my disposal.
I commend the statement to the House.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. I join her in extending my gratitude to the firefighters who responded so swiftly to the incident. I extend my sympathies to everybody affected by the disruption and place on record my thanks to all those at Heathrow who worked diligently to ensure that the airport came back on line over the weekend.
The loss of power in the Heathrow area caused significant disruption for thousands of travellers and countless businesses. Heathrow is one of the world’s busiest airports and Europe’s busiest air hub. It was scheduled to handle 1,351 flights, carrying up to 291,000 passengers on Friday. However, as we know, the fire at a nearby electrical substation forced planes to be diverted to other airports, with many long-haul flights returning to their points of departure. The financial cost of the shutdown to the airline industry is expected to total tens of millions of pounds, and there are significant question marks over the airport’s possible vulnerability to further disruption in the future.
Before we discuss the specifics of the incident, I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that she will remain engaged with Heathrow, the airlines and other key stakeholders throughout this period to minimise the impact on passengers and the economy.
I note that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, whom I am pleased to see in his place, has instructed NESO to investigate the incident urgently. It is crucial that NESO’s investigation delivers a clear and objective assessment of the incident’s circumstances and the UK’s broader energy resilience. I ask the Government to keep the House informed as that investigation develops.
I also note that the Secretary of State for Transport will closely monitor Heathrow’s internal investigation into the incident. She is right to do so. Although I trust that she will share any conclusions drawn from the report with the House, may I ask that she provides specific assurance today that she will indeed do so?
Let me focus on the details of the incident, which evidently raises significant concerns about the resilience of Heathrow airport and critical infrastructure in general. On Heathrow’s resilience, important questions arise about why the airport was dependent on a single electrical substation, which proved so vulnerable to such an incident. I understand from media reports and from the Secretary of State’s statement that although two additional substations are capable of powering the airport, doing so would require reconfiguring the power supply structure for all terminals. Does the Secretary of State believe that that set-up is appropriate for the country’s largest airport? Additionally, what assessment has she made of the power supply resilience of other major UK airports?
With regard to the resilience of our critical national infrastructure, the episode underlines the urgent need to ensure that our critical infrastructure is safeguarded against both accidental incidents and deliberate acts of sabotage by malign actors. Hon. Members will recall that when President Putin launched his illegal invasion of Ukraine, global energy markets faced immense disruption, which posed the most significant threat to European energy security since the 1970s. Despite that upheaval, Britain’s energy prices remained broadly stable, but only because the Government of the day took decisive action to protect businesses and households from price spikes as far as possible. That came at a significant financial cost.
The event at Heathrow reminds us that true energy security depends not only on price stability but on the physical safety of our energy infrastructure. Given the crucial role of airports in our economy, we must remain vigilant. In the light of that, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero about ensuring that the energy supply to major airports remains secure? What is the timeline for the Kelly review, and will its findings be made publicly available? Will the Secretary of State engage with colleagues across Government Departments to assess and mitigate the risks posed by malicious actors who will undoubtedly have taken note of this weekend’s events? Finally, what specific steps will she take to strengthen the resilience of our critical national infrastructure?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his comments. I assure him and other Members of this House that I will do everything I can to keep them updated, and I will continue the engagement I have had with Heathrow since the incident first became known to me. I spoke to the chief executive of Heathrow on Friday morning and again today. If my officials can do anything to assist those on the Opposition Front Bench in understanding this very serious issue, I am willing to facilitate any such meetings that the hon. Gentleman wishes to have.
On the internal investigation that the London Heathrow board has commissioned Ruth Kelly to do, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have asked to see a copy of that report. Assuming that I have the permission of Heathrow to share it more broadly, I am happy to share its contents with him and the House. On his question about whether I am content with and confident about the set-up for airport power supplies, I am not going to become an armchair electrical engineer; I want to see the report that has been commissioned by the airport and the report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has commissioned from NESO. We are also conducting a resilience review of critical national infrastructure via the Cabinet Office, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will look at any and all the issues that this incident raises in those reviews. I spoke with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on Friday evening, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will continue to engage across Government on any of the issues that this incident raises.
I thank the Transport Secretary for her statement. I also thank the fire services and the airport and airline staff who did so much over the weekend to address and support the situation and ensure that it did not get any worse. We will have a Committee session next week with the chief exec of Heathrow airport and others. We also look forward to asking the Secretary of State more questions when she comes to us after the Easter recess, by which time I hope that she and I will be better genned up on electrical engineering.
There has been talk this weekend about the single point of failure. In this case, that is about not just a particular electricity substation but what happens when our busiest airport closes. All our airports—critical national infrastructure—have an impact when they are at risk. I am told that the next airports national policy statement, like the last one, will cover only Heathrow. Is it not time that we had a national airports strategy to include what happens when any one of our airports is taken out of action?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Transport Committee, for her remarks. The airports national policy statement is a site-specific document, but I will reflect on her suggestion of a wider airports strategy; I am sure that we will discuss it further when I am in front of her Committee in a couple of weeks’ time.
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I echo her words and those of others in expressing my gratitude to the firefighters and other emergency workers who fought the fire and to the airport, airline and other staff for all their hard work in the face of this catastrophic systems failure.
What has happened is clearly a rare occurrence, but it raises a number of significant questions about the security and management of our critical national infrastructure. While I am pleased to hear that no foul play is currently suspected, the event has revealed vulnerabilities in our national security that may be exploited in future by terrorists and hostile state actors. It is consequently vital that lessons are learned to ensure that an incident like this does not happen again, and I welcome the announcement of a full investigation.
It is deeply concerning that the failure of a single piece of infrastructure has taken down the entire airport. Heathrow is connected to three substations, and while two were impacted, the third was running and had enough capacity—thought to be around 72 MW—to power the whole of Heathrow, which requires a little more than 40 MW. It is evident that Heathrow’s power set-up could not be swiftly reconfigured to allow the third substation to be used. We need to understand why that was, and whether it could be remedied in future. While Heathrow claims that it is normal for airports not to have sufficient back-up capacity to power all of their needs, other industries that require even more power than Heathrow—such as data centres—take more robust steps to ensure they have sufficient back-up systems to counter such failures. Should our key international transport hub not have the same safeguards?
We must also not forget those whose journeys were disrupted. It is estimated that over 200,000 passengers have been impacted by the event. However, under current regulations, most of those passengers will not be eligible for compensation. As such, I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, what impact, if any, will this incident have on the Government’s plans for expansion at Heathrow? Can the national grid infrastructure cope with a third runway, or will the airport become more prone to failure? Secondly, does the Secretary of State believe that UK airports should be taking steps to increase their back-up capacity, in order to ensure that an incident like this does not happen again? Thirdly, does she believe that the current regulations around passenger compensation are sufficient?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The question of Heathrow expansion and this very rare—unprecedented—event are two entirely separate issues. He will be aware that the Government have invited Heathrow to bring forward proposals for a third runway, and we will review the airports national policy statement after that.
With regard to back-up capacity at airports, I am told that the back-up power systems at Heathrow operated as they should have done during this incident—they did not fail. I do not want to come to knee-jerk conclusions as a result of this unprecedented incident, but we will be looking very closely at the two reviews I mentioned in my statement. I have also worked with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that passengers who have been affected by this disruption are aware of their rights.
Heathrow is in my constituency, as is the substation that caught fire, so I join other Members in thanking the firefighters who worked so hard to get this incident under control so quickly and at some risk. I also thank the police and the council officers who helped to evacuate 150 of my constituents from their homes. I was there on the day and met some of the residents, and I will be writing to them all so that we can pick up lessons from what they experienced on that day and build those lessons in.
Now that this site has gained such a high profile, there are concerns about its security for the future. I would welcome some more detailed information coming out of the inquiry about how we will secure the site for the future, not just from accident but from potential attack.
My right hon. Friend raises a fair point. I will ensure that we provide that information to him once we have reviewed the different reports that are going to be published over the next couple of months.
The Secretary of State mentioned consumer rights. Not only were Heathrow customers delayed and disrupted, but they were ripped off, with huge hikes for alternative flights, car hire and hotels. Is it not time that the Government brought forward robust anti-price-gouging legislation? In fairness to the Secretary of State and Labour Front Benchers, I also asked the previous Government, who did absolutely zero on this issue as well. [Laughter.] It is true, and I think we saw the result of that in many other ways. On behalf of the British consumer and international consumers, many of whom have been ripped off through no fault of their own as a result of this incident, is it not time that for new legislation? Should we not also carry out a wider review of the monopoly held by the operators of hotels at Heathrow and the lack of competition among airlines coming into Heathrow?
I can categorically say that it would not be right for anyone or any business to capitalise on this disruption. Whether airlines or hotels, I would expect organisations to be doing everything they can to support travellers who have been disrupted by this incident.
The Secretary of State’s statement underlines why it is important to avoid speculation in the immediate aftermath of a critical incident such as this. Can she reassure the House that if any systematic risks are identified that potentially affect other major airports, there will be a co-ordinated response? If any such issues are identified at regional and local airports, will Members of this House in proximity to those airports be kept informed?
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers. Of course, this is not the first time there has been a problem with Heathrow. Back in August 2023, UK air traffic control problems caused chaos. In July ’24, faulty software caused chaos again. We are always hoping that Heathrow is getting better. After the incident in the early hours of last Friday morning, 290,000 passengers—I was one of them, by the way—found themselves stuck somewhere in a queue. That includes many of my constituents, and they had trouble getting home, too. They have been contacting me over the weekend to tell me their stories.
The incident poses questions about whether the current operators are capable of running a third runway, if this fire caused a complete shutdown. Reports indicate that complete closure was not required. Confidence in travelling and in Heathrow are at an all-time low among my constituents and others. Has the Secretary of State made Heathrow officials aware of the need to ensure that contingency plans are not simply notes on paper, but actions to take during a crisis? What has been their response to allay fears caused by the turmoil of last weekend?
I do not think anyone underestimates the distress and disruption that this incident caused. Having spoken directly with Heathrow’s chief executive on a number of occasions, I know that he is fully aware of that. This is an unprecedented event of significant magnitude. Day in, day out, Heathrow successfully provides services to hundreds of thousands of passengers and businesses. While it is right that we do everything we can to interrogate the causes of this incident and learn any lessons, I believe that Heathrow airport can continue to be a trusted partner for Government in the longer term.
The power outage, which had such a significant effect on Heathrow and its immediate surroundings, has raised real concerns about resilience and back-up in our energy system for major infrastructure projects and sites. The Government have plans for a significant expansion of our clean energy electricity networks, so can the Secretary of State say to what extent the Government will build into their clean power plans the greater resilience and back-up that this worrying example at Heathrow has emphasised are so badly needed?
I can confidently say that as we transition to clean power, resilience will remain key in the delivery of our power network. I do not think that anything changes as a result of our determination to move to clean power, but I am happy to continue discussions with colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to make sure that that is the case.
Following that last question, can the Secretary of State give us an absolute assurance that nothing in our drive towards green energy and net zero will ever affect the sustainability and safety of our vital transport systems?
I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am aware that some other Members of this House—not present in the Chamber today—were busy peddling some myths on Friday morning about this issue. It is clear to me that Heathrow’s back-up power supplies consist of both diesel and electricity generators. No matter what some other Members might be saying, those systems did work. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
Fires at electricity substations are not unheard of, and it seems that there may have been a considerable lack of preparedness at Heathrow. When the Secretary of State receives her reviews, will she look into what preparedness there was, and what scenarios those at Heathrow had envisaged for dealing with possible outages of this kind and getting their operations up and running again as quickly as possible?
I think that the Kelly review will be looking at that. My hon. Friend makes a fair point about preparedness as well as resilience, which I will be discussing with those at Heathrow in the future.
The level of disruption caused by the fire and the subsequent closure of Heathrow airport have highlighted the importance of reliable aviation connectivity to our daily lives, as well as the fragility of much of our UK infrastructure. The National Infrastructure Commission published reports in 2020, 2023 and 2024 calling for the Government to implement standards and frameworks for resilience in key sectors such as telecoms, water, transport and energy. Does the Secretary of State agree that this incident shows how important such standards would be, and will those in the appropriate Department pick up the reports which, I am sure, found their way on to their desks over the weekend and start to implement their recommendations?
I think they are already doing that, because the review of resilience that was announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster last July is looking at the subject in the context of our critical national infrastructure.
I rarely disagree with my right hon. Friend, but I am not sure that this major incident can be entirely divorced from Heathrow’s plans for a third runway. It is precisely because it is up against densely populated communities that the effects were so devastating, with tens of thousands of people losing power, hundreds being evacuated, and part of the M4 being closed. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that as part of any consideration of a 50% expansion of Heathrow—which would presumably make problems such as this 50% worse—she will at least look into the risks, and the resilience, that would be consequences of such an expansion?
I doubt that it necessarily follows that an expanded Heathrow that accommodated twice as many flights as it does currently would make an incident such as the one that we saw on Friday any more likely. This was an unprecedented fire of a significant scale. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that before making any decisions about the expansion of Heathrow, we will ensure that any proposals that may be forthcoming comply with all our legislative requirements.
The Secretary of State mentioned that many families were evacuated from their properties. Safety is clearly of paramount importance, but only a few days ago NatPower UK informed me that it wanted to build an enormous electrical substation in my constituency. Once NESO has reported on this matter, will the Secretary of State please help to organise a meeting with the relevant Energy Minister so that we can discuss its findings and link them with any proposal for a new substation in my constituency?
The relevant Energy Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who is sitting next to me—was nodding, which suggests to me that he would be happy to have such a meeting.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for the way in which she has approached this very serious issue. Heathrow is clearly a vital piece of national infrastructure; it is also central to the economy of west London and the Thames valley, and plays an important part in the attraction of inward investment to our region. As the Secretary of State works with the authors of the two reviews, will she also liaise with the local business community and local authorities in the Thames valley and ensure that they are kept fully abreast of the work that is carried out in the reviews?
My hon. Friend has made a fair point, and I am happy to give him that undertaking.
I again urge the Secretary of State not to divorce the question of expansion from what has happened here. Surely what this incident, crippling Europe’s busiest airport, shows us is that we need a better Heathrow, not a bigger Heathrow. We need to focus on the infrastructure in and around Heathrow, to improve resilience, security and the passenger experience. While a third runway may not increase the likelihood of such an incident, the impact of such an incident will be all the greater if she continues to put all our aviation eggs in one basket.
Let me assure the hon. Lady that I am not putting all the country’s aviation eggs in one basket. At the moment we do not have proposals before us for a third runway at Heathrow. We will look at those proposals carefully when they are submitted and ensure that any decisions about either the airports national policy statement or any subsequent development consent order are taken in line with our environmental obligations on things such as carbon, air pollution and noise. Consideration of the resilience of the infrastructure will be part of that.
A “national embarrassment”, a “laughing stock globally”, “shocking”; with memes doing the rounds, those are just some of the words that could be used to describe this weekend’s events at Heathrow. While right hon. Members on our Defence Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy were busy discussing hybrid and cyber-threats from our adversaries, our nation’s biggest port was taken down by a single substation fire. Does my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary agree that, while my Slough constituents and people across the country are not bothered with the blame game that is now under way, this event should be a wake-up call regarding the resilience of our national infrastructure, and there should be no repeat?
This was an unprecedented event and Heathrow stood up its resilience plans swiftly. Within 18 hours of the fire starting, planes were once again landing at the airport. For an airport the size of Heathrow, that is no mean feat. It is right both that an internal review of the airport crisis management and resilience plans takes place, and that the Government have commissioned the review that will be conducted by NESO.
The Secretary of State has indicated that she spoke to the chief executive of Heathrow on Friday and again this morning. I would like to think that, with an incident of this scale, there were ministerial contacts throughout the weekend, possibly on a more than daily basis, given the impact it had on so many people. Will she commit to urgently reviewing the DFT’s response to this major incident, in addition to Heathrow’s? She will also be aware that airports the length and breadth of the UK are vital transport hubs and linked to critical infrastructure, such as Aberdeen airport and, in my constituency, Inverness airport, with dozens of helicopter flights servicing offshore oil and gas and renewables infrastructure; and airports are also home to air ambulances, police helicopters and coastguard services. Will she therefore commit also to reviewing the level of operational resilience in those and other locations that host services critical to people’s wellbeing and to energy security and national security?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in addition to the conversations I had with the chief executive of Heathrow, I was updated throughout the weekend by my officials on what was happening at the airport. I am happy to write to him about the wider point he raises.
As the Secretary of State is aware, my constituency contains London City airport, which sits closely alongside residential and business buildings, so safety is something we are very alive to. It is also an area of massive regeneration, so we are also alive to power pressure, and that part of her statement will be interesting for my constituents. Can she assure us not only that the review and the lessons learned will be shared, but that we will look at how they can be adapted, so that other airports can adjust and carry out future-proofing for their resilience, and so that we are not just learning lessons after the event?
Does the Secretary of State agree that what happened on Thursday and Friday is a complete national embarrassment and should never have happened? Will she do an assessment of our remaining airports to ensure not only that they also have multiple supply points for electricity, but that they do not rely on the illusion, as plainly happened at Heathrow, that those multiple supply points made it completely reliable as a hub airport? That appears at first glance to have been the case for Heathrow, and it is not adequate.
Perhaps the right hon. Member was not listening when I responded to questions from this side of the Chamber. There were multiple power supply points to the airport, but Heathrow took the decision that it needed to reconfigure the supply in the airport, as terminals 2 and 4 were very badly affected. It decided to put the safety and security of the travelling public first. It powered down all those systems and then powered them up again. I was not in the room when those decisions were taken. Heathrow is a private company, and it took decisions about what it thought was best for the travelling public. I, as Transport Secretary, am not going to second-guess those, but I will ensure that we do very thorough reviews. I will interrogate those reviews very carefully and ensure that any lessons we need to learn are acted upon.
I thank the Secretary of State for updating the House. As well as being one of the busiest airports in the world in its own right, Heathrow is also a crucial hub, meaning that connector airports, such as Newcastle International and others, are really impacted by any issues at Heathrow. Can she please assure me not only that a proper investigation is taking place, but that we will learn the lessons and ensure that there are no more such issues, and will she keep the House updated in the meantime?
I recognise that Heathrow provides really important connectivity for our regional airports, and therefore for my hon. Friend’s constituents. I can assure her that I will keep the House updated, once both the internal review commissioned by Heathrow comes back and the report by NESO has been published.
Obviously, this event was on a catastrophic scale, but there is regular disruption at Heathrow. One of the consequences of that is the wholesale cancellation of flights between Heathrow and Scotland, which I have raised previously in this Chamber. When Ruth Kelly does her report on Heathrow’s resilience, will she look at its wider resilience and its ability to cope with weather-related or other technical issues, so that they do not lead to the wholesale cancellation of flights between Scotland and London?
I am not writing the terms of reference for the Kelly review, because it has been commissioned by Heathrow airport itself, and I hesitate to stand at the Dispatch Box and try to amend the terms of a private company’s review. The aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), tells me that the right hon. Gentleman has written to him about this issue, and he is due to come back to him on it. The matter is also being considered by the aviation futures forum.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I add to the comments made by other Members by thanking those who dealt with this terrible incident at the time. It obviously had a huge impact on passengers, including residents in Harlow looking to get to the US. What reassurance can she give passengers that this was due to an unprecedented power outage? Does this add to the case for other airports such as Stansted, which employs some of my constituents, having greater resilience, greater capacity and, potentially, even transatlantic flights?
My hon. Friend is tempting me to make a whole series of interesting comments about Stansted. I can assure him that when we get the reviews back, we will look at their implications for other airports, including Stansted, which provides employment for a number of his constituents.
The fire and Heathrow closure will have impacted not only on travellers and on goods and services, but on the employees and contractors who work at Heathrow. Could the Secretary of State reassure me and those workers that she will urge all employers at Heathrow to ensure that staff who were due to work but were unable to do so, through no fault of their own, will be paid for that day?
I am grateful for that question. I must admit that it is not a subject I have, to date, discussed with the chief executive of Heathrow, but I am happy to follow it up for the hon. Gentleman and come back to him.
I thank the Secretary of State for all her hard work on this matter over the weekend. Can she reassure my constituents that our energy resilience remains high, and that the holidays they have saved long and hard for will not be disrupted by similar incidents at regional airports up and down the country? Will she also look into the particular impact that such outages have on disabled passengers?
I will look at the specific issue my hon. Friend raises about disabled passengers, but I would like to reassure her and her constituents that I am confident that our airports and critical national infrastructure are resilient. I recognise that significant disruption was caused on this occasion. The NESO review will tell us if there are any other actions we need to take, but I am confident about our current arrangements.
It is, first, really important to emphasise that energy infrastructure is generally safe. However, the example on Friday indicated that things can go wrong. What is the Secretary of State, alongside her Government colleagues, doing to address over-industrialisation in certain areas? In Kintore and Leylodge in my constituency, we have a 275 kV substation next to a 400 kV substation, with a 3 GW hydrogen plant and nine battery storage sites in the planning. Together, there is a huge risk, if we consider that a fire was able to start on Friday.
All these risks are considered in the round, but if the hon. Lady wants to write to an appropriate Minister in another Department and copy me in, I would be happy to follow up on those discussions.
Following the incident at Heathrow, will the Secretary of State commit to investing in regional airports, such as Blackpool airport, to diversify our air travel options and support local economies such as mine in Blackpool South, and therefore reduce our reliance on major hubs?
Mr Speaker, I am really very sorry, but I did not quite catch the question. If my hon. Friend would like to write to me, I will ensure I come back to him.
The Secretary of State has, perfectly fairly, said that some of the specific learning about the incident will have to wait until we know more, but she also said that she has been told that, as a matter of design, the back-up power arrangements for Heathrow were not intended to cover all airport operations until, as we know, a significant reconfiguration took place over a matter of hours. Will she assure that she can and will begin the work of considering whether that is the right position, not just for Heathrow but for other airports? I make no predetermination on her behalf on whether it is or is not, but she can surely do that now without waiting for the specifics of this incident all to be clear.
Heathrow, as a private company, is responsible for developing its own resilience plans. This is an issue that will be considered properly by the Kelly review, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right: I have been told that the back-up power systems were not designed to provide power for the entire airport. When I discussed the matter with the chief executive of Heathrow on Friday, he told me that is quite typical for an airport the size of Heathrow, but I am sure it is an issue the Kelly review will be looking at.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and associate myself with the comments of gratitude towards the firefighters and airport staff who responded to the incident. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that passengers have sufficient rights to receive support and compensation when these kinds of external events disrupt their plans?
Airlines are responsible for providing passengers with a refund within seven days, or to be re-routed to their destination under the same conditions, with required suitable accommodation and food. That is the airlines’ responsibility. We have advertised the rights of passengers via the Civil Aviation Authority in recent days to ensure that people are aware. Those are the provisions that exist within our law to compensate people who have been affected by this type of disruption.
In any modern economy, it is clear that the resilience of critical national infrastructure faces many risks and threats, and that resilience goes hand in hand with our national security. Does the Secretary of State agree that the incident and other risks we face demonstrate that the role of the Prime Minister’s national security adviser should be bolstered to more prominently cover national security and critical infrastructure resilience?
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will do everything in their power to learn the lessons from this incident and ensure that our critical national infrastructure is protected and resilient as we move forward.
The Secretary of State said in her statement that the review by the National Energy System Operator will seek to learn wider lessons for energy resilience and critical national infrastructure. Will that review include the infrastructure in Northern Ireland, specifically Belfast international airport in my constituency and Belfast City airport?
My understanding is that the grid is separate in Northern Ireland. I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s question and consider with colleagues the appropriate geographical scope of the NESO review. The terms of reference have not yet been finalised, so I will come back to him on that.
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsToday I am announcing two key measures to boost funding for transport as part of the Government’s commitment to renew national infrastructure, improve England’s road network and drive growth as part of the plan for change.
First, I am setting out the details of what local highways authorities across England will need to do to unlock their full share of the £500 million funding uplift that the Government have announced for the 2025-26 financial year. This will help ensure that every penny of taxpayer funding for road repairs is delivering results and will help tackle the pothole plague, which is the result of a decade of under-investment by the previous Government.
For the first time ever, local highways authorities will have to publish a succinct report, in plain English, by the end of June, detailing what they are doing to improve the state of their local roads. This will shine a spotlight on what councils are doing with taxpayers’ money and allow local people to hold their councils to account. It will help ensure that the additional funding provided by my Department will be spent delivering the improvements that local people have every right to expect.
The Department has provided a template for these reports that sets out the information that is required. Each authority will need to explain how much it is spending on highways maintenance and how this has changed over time. Authorities will also need to give an overall picture of the condition of their roads, and a summary of how many potholes they have filled in each of the last five years, as well as what they are doing to shift their focus to long-term preventive maintenance. They will need to explain what they are doing to minimise the disruption caused by utility companies’ street works, and to make their highways networks more resilient to the changing climate.
Local highways authorities will also be required to send some further, more technical information to the Department by the end of October. This will summarise what each authority is doing to follow best practice and deliver innovation and efficiency. Authorities will have to provide information on matters such as whether they carry out customer satisfaction surveys to allow the public to have a say on local priorities, and whether they benchmark their performance with other authorities.
Authorities that comply in full with the requirements will receive their full share of the £500 million funding uplift, which for most authorities will mean an increase of almost 40% on average in highways maintenance funding compared to the current financial year. Authorities that do not meet these requirements will forfeit the final 25% of the funding uplift, with this money then redistributed to other councils to allow them to do even more to fix their local roads.
Secondly, I am providing details of a £4.8 billion interim settlement for National Highways in 2025-26 to keep the strategic road network working for the people and businesses that rely on it every day.
Delivery of this investment focuses heavily on operating, maintaining and enhancing the strategic network. Crucially, there is also a record investment in renewals, which is essential to keeping this vital network in good repair to avoid unplanned disruption, drive productivity and better connect people and business to support growth across the country.
The current road investment strategy (RIS) expires at the end of March 2025, and we intend to set a new multi-year strategy. But this requires time to plan, and the choices we make in that strategy will be informed by this year’s spending review.
In the absence of an RIS, I am laying in Parliament statutory directions and guidance to National Highways to cover the exercise of its functions beyond the expiry of the second road investment strategy, from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 inclusive.
[HCWS541]
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsThe examining authority’s report on the Gatwick airport development consent order application was received on 27 November 2024. Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, a decision must be made within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless the power under section 107(3) to extend the deadline is exercised and a statement is made to Parliament announcing the new deadline. The current deadline for a decision is 27 February 2025.
This statement confirms that today I have issued a “minded to approve” letter for the Gatwick airport northern runway development consent order under the Planning Act 2008.
Given that the examining authority’s report, for the first time, recommends an alternative DCO which includes a range of controls on the operation of the scheme and not all the provisions have been considered during the examination, I am issuing a minded to approve decision that provides some additional time to seek views from all parties on the provisions, prior to a final decision.
The deadline for the final decision is now extended to 27 October 2025—an extension of nine months. The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to give development consent for the above application.
[HCWS476]
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsOn Tuesday 18 February, I launched the public consultation for the Government’s upcoming railways Bill. This consultation sets out our proposals for the most comprehensive reform of Britain’s railways in 30 years, ending decades of fragmentation and inefficiency and delivering a simplified model built from the ground up to serve its users.
Our country needs an efficient, modern railway that kick-starts growth and realises the potential of our towns, cities, and businesses. An affordable, reliable railway brings new markets and job opportunities closer to those who stand ready to make the most of them. It makes education, healthcare, public services, and even just the support of family and friends more accessible to those who need it. A railway that offers a genuine alternative to road travel, combined with a thriving rail freight sector, means cleaner air and less congestion for everyone.
As you are aware, this Government are delivering our plan for change, with investment and reform driving growth, putting more money in people’s pockets, and rebuilding Britain. Reforming our railways is central to this and will drive improved performance, bringing more people back to rail, generating greater revenue and reducing costs. This consultation document sets out our vision for the future of Britain’s railways, and the transformative changes that are already under way to make it a reality.
Our manifesto commitment to put passengers and communities back at the heart of the railways by establishing Great British Railways is central to achieving this plan. We have already delivered the legislation to bring our railways back into public ownership, set up shadow GBR, and reset industrial relations with the trade unions. The publication of this consultation marks our next step in fixing the railways once and for all.
The consultation sets out our plans to establish GBR as a new arm’s length body, bringing responsibility for train services and rail infrastructure together into one integrated organisation. This means that most passengers will travel on GBR trains, running on GBR tracks, and arrive at GBR stations—all delivered by a single organisation in line with the clear strategic direction set by Government. GBR will be empowered with the expertise and authority to run the railway in the public interest, delivering reliable, affordable, high-quality, and efficient services, alongside ensuring safety and accessibility.
The private sector will continue to play a vital role under the new model on everything from freight and open access services to ticket retailing, rolling stock and the wider supply chain. GBR will leverage the best of both the public and private sectors to unlock growth and drive innovation. GBR will follow fair, efficient and transparent processes when allocating access to the network, with a robust set of protections for third-party operators enshrined in law. There will also be a statutory duty on GBR to promote the use of rail freight, recognising the sector’s growth potential and helping to deliver on the Government’s commitment to net zero.
GBR will have a new customer-focused culture, ensuring passengers are at the heart of everything it does. This will be reinforced by the establishment of a powerful new independent passenger watchdog that will monitor standards, champion improvements, and ensure that passengers feel they have a clear voice within the industry standing up for them.
A reliable, affordable, and efficient railway is vital to supporting the Government’s growth mission—vital not only in connecting people to jobs and opportunities, but also in contributing to the regeneration and integration of local communities. The proposals in this consultation protect and enhance the roles of devolved leaders, both in Scotland and Wales and within England, in shaping how the railway serves their communities. Existing devolution settlements will be protected and devolved leaders will benefit from new statutory roles, drawing on their experiences and expertise to manage, plan and develop a network that delivers for communities. We will continue to work closely with these leaders as we shape this role to ensure the benefits of our reforms are felt across Britain. In addition, established mayoral strategic authorities will have a right to request further rail devolution within England, bringing decision making closer to those who use the railways.
The publication of this consultation marks the next milestone in delivering the legislation needed to transform our railways, unlocking their potential to drive growth and contribute to a decade of national renewal under this Government. We are therefore seeking the views of passengers, freight customers, industry suppliers and experts, and the public at large ahead of the introduction of the railways Bill later in this Session. Only once we have these views can we deliver a system that truly serves its customers, provides better value for hardworking taxpayers, acts as an engine for growth and opportunity, and stands once again as a point of pride for modern Britain.
[HCWS466]
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberWe have empowered local councils to tackle the highway maintenance backlog, which is the result of a decade of under-investment by the previous Government. We have made an immediate start by providing an extra £500 million next year, representing an increase of nearly 40% for most councils. We will end the pothole plague on our roads and ensure safer journeys for everyone.
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I recently met the roads Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood)—and National Highways about the need for investment in Seaton Burn and Moor Farm roundabouts. Those critical pieces of infrastructure are already struggling with capacity and congestion. The local councils and the North East combined authority have all highlighted the fact that upgrades will be crucial for growth in the north-east. Will the Secretary of State consider how this Government could support the project, and whether the scheme can test a new form of transport business case for projects intended to deliver growth in all of our regions?
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I know she is a committed advocate for improvements to the road network in the north-east. I recognise the importance of Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts to her local area, and I assure her that both are being considered as part of a pipeline of projects for our future road investment strategy.
A recent freedom of information request revealed that, of identified highways spending across the Bradford district by Bradford council over the past six years, £49 million was spent within Bradford city itself, but only £4 million was spent in Keighley and my wider constituency, despite streets such as Elliott Street in Silsden being in a very poor state of repair. Will the Secretary of State write to leaders at Bradford council and remind them that highways spending needs to be spent equally across the whole Bradford district, including places such as Keighley and Ilkley, and not just within Bradford city centre?
I am not the sort of Secretary of State who would sit at my desk in Whitehall and instruct local authorities to spend certain amounts of money on certain roads. I expect local authorities to take strategic decisions based on where the investment is needed, and I will leave it to local leaders to make those decisions.
Too many of Britain’s roads are in a shocking state of disrepair, as the Secretary of State says. In my constituency, Labour-run Merton council has the worst roads in London and the second worst in the country. Some 40% of our local roads are rated as poor by her Department. Although I welcome the coming year’s increase in funding, that is only a short-term measure and not based on need; Merton and others have received less than authorities whose roads are in a better condition. As Labour-run Merton has failed to maintain its roads and has not been bailed out by its friends in the Government, will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what action can be taken?
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to ensure that roads in his constituency and across London are maintained to an adequate standard. The increase of £500 million in this year’s allocation to highways maintenance represents an average 40% increase for local authorities. It will be making the difference, and I would be happy to discuss this issue with him further.
Open access operators will continue to have a place in our reformed Great British railways. We have supported new proposals from Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway, and existing track access rights will be honoured. Open access can provide benefits, but it must not come at the cost of better services for passengers and better value for taxpayers.
In her recent letter to the Office of Rail and Road, the Transport Secretary appeared to push against open access agreements, yet last week, as she has mentioned today, the Government signalled their intention to support the request to license the Wrexham to London Euston line, which will come through Aldridge in my constituency. Will the Transport Secretary clarify her position on the Wrexham to Euston line, particularly in regard to the inclusion of Aldridge train station? As she will be aware, thanks to the Labour mayor, the funding for that station has been raided and put into his pet projects.
I appreciate the right hon. Lady’s commitment to making the case for a new station at Aldridge, but I gently point out to her that in the 14 years of her party’s Government, including her own stint in the Department for Transport, the station failed to materialise. The West Midlands combined authority has had to prioritise the delivery of schemes that are in construction. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach, but I appreciate that she will continue to make the case for her own station.
Open access operator Grand Central already runs five services daily from Sunderland to London King’s Cross through my constituency, but unfortunately they currently do not stop. My constituents have endured years of poor rail services from Northern Rail, with just one overcrowded two-carriage train an hour, which is often cancelled or delayed. While I welcome this Government’s investment in 450 new trains for Northern Rail, we need some immediate solutions. Will the Minister urge the ORR to approve the application from Grand Central to allow these trains to stop at stations in my Easington constituency?
Open access operators currently account for 1% of our railways, and they do not always have the same public service obligations as other train operating companies. We have always supported open access operators where they genuinely add value and do not divert revenue away from existing operators, all of which are supported by the taxpayer in some form. I would add that we need to make best use of constrained capacity on the rail network. Ensuring that the railway can recover from problems on the railways is also important to me.
Talking of access, several years ago, Greater Anglia demolished half of Wickford station to extend some of the platforms. However, after nearly three years of endless excuses, missed deadlines and, frankly, broken promises, it still has not rebuilt it. I regret to say that I have lost all confidence in the senior management of Greater Anglia. If they told me today was a Thursday, I would double-check it. Can I go over their head and ask the Secretary of State for a personal meeting with the Rail Minister so that we can finally get Wickford station rebuilt, despite Greater Anglia, rather than because of it?
I will happily ask the Rail Minister to meet the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that progress can be made at Wickford.
I know that my right hon. Friend will be delighted by the news that Go-op will be operating a new mandate for return services between Swindon and Taunton. Does she agree that this demonstrates the Government’s commitment to improving connectivity across the country? Can we hope for such improvements to connectivity in my little corner of the world in Berkshire?
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this proposal, which demonstrates the pragmatic approach we take to open access operators. Go-op will be the first co-operatively owned train service running anywhere in the UK. If there are any investors out there thinking about investing in that service, I encourage them to look closely at it.
As part of our reforms to the railway, we have set out that we will continue to lease rolling stock when we take contracts into public ownership, but we will apply a single directing mind approach to eliminate barriers to sharing rolling stock better across the network. We will consider the best funding and financing structures for future orders and contracts in partnership with private capital.
At the moment, the rolling stock leasing companies take more than £1 billion of profit out of the railway. A substantial amount of that could be reinvested in improving the railway network. With the Bill for Great British Railways due to come to Parliament soon, will the Secretary of State look seriously at alternative financing models such as EUROFIMA—the European company for the financing of railroad rolling stock—or even a publicly owned ROSCO that could deliver rolling stock at a considerably lower price? Indeed, will she be more socialist and more ambitious with the Bill?
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not lack any ambition when it comes to Great British Railways. It would cost billions in taxpayers’ money to buy existing rolling stock, at a time when there are many pressures on the public purse. My officials have been engaging regularly with EUROFIMA to consider the potential for UK membership and how EUROFIMA finance could be deployed in the UK.
It is our ambition through public ownership to deliver a more affordable railway. This year’s fare increase of 4.6% is the lowest absolute increase in three years. We are committed to reforming the overcomplicated fares system and expanding ticketing innovations like pay-as-you-go in urban areas across the country.
When the Secretary of State finally steps in and knocks heads together and we get our Azuma train to Grimsby via Market Rasen, will she instruct the railway company to name the locomotive Margaret Thatcher to remind us all that the best way to reduce the cost of rail services is to end restrictive trade union practices?
I hate to disappoint the Father of the House, but I am afraid that I will not be making such a commitment today.
The British people pay some of the highest rail fares in Europe. However, the Government seem to prioritise the size of the socialist state, by kowtowing to trade unions with radical public pay rises and nationalisation plans. Will the Secretary of State instead please focus on improving the lot of commuters—particularly Romford’s hard-working commuters—and take real steps to reduce rail fares and improve railway services?
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the gall to raise this issue when, under his party’s Government, fares rose at around twice the speed of wages. I also point out that since 2020, train operating companies have paid out nearly £1 billion to their parent companies, signed off by Conservative Ministers in the previous Government. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about costs and value for money on the railway, I suggest he start by looking in the mirror.
It was, in fact, a Conservative Secretary of State who forced fare rises on Transport for London in exchange for covid emergency funding. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to put TfL on a better footing in the future, including backing great projects such as the one in my constituency to upgrade and provide step-free access at one of the busiest stations in the country at South Kensington?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: in the middle of a global pandemic, the Conservatives were still obsessed with settling old political scores over fares in London, rather than doing right by the capital. I vividly remember a meeting with the then Secretary of State to discuss how we could keep services safely running, which ended with him telling me, “This would have been so much easier if you hadn’t frozen fares.” Unlike the Conservatives, this Government will always do right by the capital, as well as the rest of the country.
Can I ask that this UK Government do not follow the approach taken by the Scottish Government on public ownership? ScotRail fares are set for another inflation-busting increase in April, following an 8.7% hike last year and the reintroduction of peak fares in September. Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP should be making rail more affordable, instead of hitting passengers with painful fare hikes time and again? The increases are bad for Scotland’s rail passengers, bad for our economy and bad for the environment.
I assure my hon. Friend that we will bring the train operating companies into public ownership properly, and that we will not repeat the mistakes we have seen in Scotland.
I am very interested by that last answer, because the Government do think that nationalisation will reduce the cost of rail travel. What lessons has the Secretary of State learned from the SNP’s nationalisation of ScotRail?
We will be increasing value for money in the way we operate our railways. To start off with, we will be getting rid of up to £100 million a year in management fees that we are currently paying out of the public purse to the train operating companies. We are determined to drive up performance on our railways and give better value for money to the taxpayer.
The latest experiment in nationalisation has shown in just two years that state inefficiency has pushed up costs—not reduced them—by £600 million, forcing fares to rise, alongside an increase in delays, a slump in customer satisfaction, and cuts, instead of improvements, to services. The data shows that in England, Greater Anglia has been the best performing operator, saving money for taxpayers while serving passengers with modern, punctual trains. The Secretary of State is about to launch a public consultation on nationalisation—one that has been as delayed as ScotRail trains. I am told that even the plan to publish it today has been further delayed, with the excuse of No. 10 on the line. If the Secretary of State consults, she has to be prepared to listen. Will she now listen to the deep concerns of the rail industry, and not just the ever-generous unions, and avoid another disastrous nationalisation?
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the consultation on establishing Great British Railways is coming soon, and I look forward to discussing it further with him. I am confident that by bringing together the management of track and train, we can strip out duplication in our railways, provide better value for the taxpayer and ensure that trains are turning up on time, with reliable and punctual services. That is what we will deliver.
Improving performance is a top priority for this Government as we establish Great British Railways. We regularly meet managing directors of train operating companies and their Network Rail counterparts to demand action to raise standards. Great British Railways will reunite the management of track and train, and will make joined-up, whole-system decisions that will improve performance for the benefit of passengers and taxpayers alike.
The TransPennine route upgrade is the biggest rail infrastructure project in the country, and my constituency is at the centre of it. One of the main benefits for passengers will be faster and more reliable trains. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the project, and tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that local communities such as those in Huddersfield benefit fully from improvements in rail performance?
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of this investment to her constituency. The rail upgrade will double the number of seats between Huddersfield and Manchester, and will increase the number by 30% between Huddersfield and Leeds. Service reliability will also improve. Moreover, 60% of the workforce will be employed within 25 miles of the route and 66% of spending will be within the local supply chain, which will lead to local growth and jobs—so it is good news all round.
I want to improve rail performance in my constituency, and the extension of the Borders Railway from Tweedbank to Hawick and Newcastleton and on to Carlisle has strong local and cross-party support. Has the UK Government’s share of the funding for the feasibility study—secured as part of the Borderlands growth deal—been confirmed, and will it be released to Scottish Borders Council imminently?
I understand that officials in my Department are speaking to Scottish colleagues, and I hope to be in a position to say more about that soon, potentially as part of the spending review.
We are getting on with delivering this Government’s plan for change. Last week I approved upgrades to four major road projects across Wiltshire, Leeds, Essex and Buckinghamshire. That £90 million investment will reduce journey times, ease congestion and improve safety. It is on the back of drivers’ switching to electric cars in record-breaking numbers, with sales in January more than 40% higher than those last year and nearly 20,000 public charge points added in 2024 alone. We are backing, with a £205 million investment, the west midlands metro extension, which will take trams from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill. We are cutting journey times and improving connections for towns with poor public transport links, and yesterday we announced a £300 million investment to get Britain walking and cycling, with hundreds of new footpaths and cycle lanes. We are delivering the basics of a better transport system, which means improving the everyday journeys that drive economic growth and make people’s lives better.
I met key Scottish stakeholders recently to discuss proposals to bring to the Glasgow city region a metro scheme interconnecting more and more parts of our region, including the towns and villages in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital for the Scottish Government to show the same ambition for growth in Scotland as the UK Government have shown in their recent transport announcements, and will she work with the Scottish Government to ensure that this project maximises investment and opportunity for my constituents?
I will always work closely with colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that this Government’s ambitions for transport reach all corners of the UK. The Scottish Government have had a record settlement through the Budget, so I look forward to hearing more about plans for a greater Glasgow metro scheme as they develop.
In her previous role as deputy London Mayor for transport, the Secretary of State stated she was “clear” in her opposition to a third runway at Heathrow. Is she still clear in her opposition, and if not, what has changed her mind?
When I was deputy Mayor for transport in London, I was speaking in that capacity at that time, reflecting the views of the Mayor of London and City Hall on a previous Heathrow expansion scheme. As Secretary of State, I will consider any airport expansion proposals on their merits and in line with existing processes. Balancing economic growth and our environmental obligations is central to all my work in this role, and I will always act in the national interest, doing what is right for the country as a whole.
There is a balance to be struck here. I welcome services such as those that run to Hull; they open up new routes and new connectivity. I have, however, asked the Office of Rail and Road to consider the balance in the revenue that they abstract from public operators, and to ensure that we are using constrained capacity in our network appropriately to deliver excellent services for passengers.
I fully support the Chancellor’s call for fresh proposals for Heathrow. Some of our airports in the south-east are running at or near capacity. We cannot pretend that that is not the case, and I am not prepared to be part of a Government who duck the difficult decisions. As the person who may ultimately be taking planning decisions on any application for a third runway at Heathrow, I will judge any scheme on its merits. We will update the airports national policy statement, and any expansion scheme must meet our legal and environmental obligations.
As the Secretary of State knows, the south-west peninsula already contributes significantly to the UK economy, including through life sciences and climate tech. We are, however, held back from reaching our full potential by under-investment in transport connectivity, which is made worse by upcoming works at Old Oak Common and the continuing bottleneck on the A303. Will the Minister commit to developing a strategic investment plan to ensure that the south-west peninsula has the transport infrastructure it needs to unlock further growth?
Northern Trains runs one train per day on the Gainsborough-Brigg-Cleethorpes line. Does the Secretary of State agree that one train per day is pretty pointless? Will she arrange a meeting with the appropriate Minister for me and other affected MPs, so that we can discuss how to secure a better service?
Reliable, frequent train services are important, no matter where in the country we live. I will ask the Rail Minister for a meeting.
Does the Minister agree that achieving economic growth requires sustained investment in our transport infra- structure? Would she be willing to visit Glasgow International airport to learn more about how transport infrastructure can assist with the further development of the proposed investment zone in my constituency?
Despite my constituency being only a stone’s throw from Heathrow, we have no direct rail link to the country’s busiest airport. Last week, Heathrow Southern Railway submitted a business case to the Government. When will the Government consider it, to ensure that my constituents can get a train to Heathrow?
Alongside the question of how many planes should take off and land at Heathrow, there is the critical question of how people get to the airport. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I would be happy to discuss it further with him.
Learner drivers in Basingstoke have been left stranded for months—in some cases, years—unable to book a driving test. That is affecting their jobs, their education and the local economy. Does the Secretary of State agree that urgent action is needed to extend test centre hours, to ramp up the recruitment of examiners, and to clamp down on the rip-off companies that book multiple slots, only to flog them at higher prices?
When the previous Government cancelled High Speed 2, they promised more than £4 billion for projects in the north and the midlands. Do the Government still plan to deliver on that, and when should we expect to see that money in the north?
I hate to tell the hon. Gentleman this, but that was fantasy money. We are working through a pipeline of transport infrastructure projects, and will make announcements alongside the spending review.
The long-promised platform 1 lift at Hertford North station, due to be delivered under the Access for All scheme, has been delayed yet again. This leaves some of my disabled constituents having to travel back up the line to get a different train to platform 2, so that they can use the lift there. Will the appropriate Minister meet me to discuss how we can urgently drive forward the lift project for my constituents?
On economic growth, which we have discussed, will the Secretary of State clarify, for the benefit of the Conservative party, that economic growth depends on rather more than a well-oiled revolving door between the Tory party and big business—a door through which a former Tory Transport Minister and Member of the other place unsuccessfully attempted to walk last week?
Delivering economic growth requires a proper plan for investment in our transport infrastructure. That is exactly what this Government are determined to deliver.
Once Birmingham’s Camp Hill line reopens, we will need track investment if we are to restore the pre-pandemic service frequencies on the cross-city line, including to Northfield and Longbridge. Will the Minister look fully at the case for upgrading King’s Norton station?
My hon. Friend is an assiduous and informed campaigner for improved rail services for his constituents. He will know that funding for the midlands rail hub includes funding for designs for reinstated island platforms at King’s Norton. Decisions still need to be taken on future investment, but I know that he will push for construction to start as soon as possible.
The Calder Valley line was listed as a top priority for improvements by Transport for the North’s electrification taskforce 10 years ago, back in 2015, yet my constituents are still waiting for those improvements. Will the Minister commit this Government to delivering the infrastructure for my constituents that the last Government could not?
Network Rail is completing a strategic outline business case, covering electrification of the Calder Valley line. The business case will be considered in the context of the wider electrification strategy, so that we can determine how to deliver the best possible benefits across the region.
Next month, railway enthusiasts from around the world will come to my constituency, where we will mark the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington railway, which took off from the town of Shildon. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Rail Minister to meet me and other MPs along that route to talk about how the Government can be part of those celebrations?
I am sure that is an invitation that the Rail Minister could not possibly refuse.
On that basis, I look forward to a Minister opening the Coppull railway station, or at least doing an impact study on the main line.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsI wish to update the House on the Government’s position regarding airport expansion and the transition to greener aviation.
The Government recognise that air connectivity plays a vital role in supporting economic growth across the country, contributing £14 billion to our GDP in 2023 and over 140,000 jobs across the UK in 2022.
However, capacity constraints are hindering the country’s ability to reap the growth benefits of aviation. There is a particular capacity challenge in the south-east of England. Heathrow airport—the largest airport in Europe by passenger traffic, the most internationally connected airport in the world, and the UK’s only hub airport—plays a critical role in enabling international connectivity for both passengers and freight. This supports productivity and economic growth. Around 75% of UK long-haul flights go from Heathrow and 60% of UK air freight goes through Heathrow. But Heathrow is running at nearly full capacity, which is limiting our potential to compete with major European hubs and holding back growth.
Tackling capacity constraints at Heathrow airport could unlock growth benefits that a world-class aviation sector can provide. That is why the Government support and are inviting proposals for a third runway at Heathrow, to be brought forward by the summer.
Expansion could inject billions into our economy, create over 100,000 extra jobs, strengthen Heathrow’s status as a global passenger and air freight hub, and deliver major benefits for passengers, including lower fares and reduced delays.
Once proposals have been received, the Government will move at speed to review the airports national policy statement (ANPS), which provides the basis for decision making on granting development consent for a new runway at Heathrow. Any scheme must be delivered in line with the UK’s legal, climate and environmental obligations.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the economic benefits of airport expansions are delivered in a way that considers and addresses environmental and social responsibilities. We are already making great strides in transitioning to greener aviation. Earlier this month, the SAF mandate became law, requiring 2% of this year’s aviation fuel supply to be from sustainable sources, with the targets reaching 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040. SAF is one of the key measures required to reach net zero emissions from aviation by 2050; it reduces greenhouse gas emissions by around 70%, on average, when replacing fossil kerosene—jet fuel.
Today, I am pleased to announce that we will invest £63 million over the next year for the advanced fuels fund, supporting SAF producers across the UK, including in areas such as Teesside. We have also published today the Government’s response to the consultation on a revenue certainty mechanism (RCM), which, once implemented, will encourage investment into the nascent UK SAF industry. Next steps on the RCM will be set out imminently.
Taken together, our SAF commitments will support thousands of jobs, bring down our transport emissions, support our energy security and make the UK a clean energy superpower.
[HCWS397]
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberMay I start by saying it is very good to be here? I wish you, Mr Speaker, and the House staff a happy new year, and I wish the Aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), a happy birthday.
In the Budget, the Government confirmed more than £1 billion of funding to support bus services, an additional £200 million for the city region sustainable transport settlements for eligible mayors, more than £650 million for local transport outside the city regions, a £500 million increase in local highways maintenance, and £485 million in capital funding for Transport for London.
I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box for her first question time. She brings great experience of working to bring transport authorities together. My constituency of Worsley and Eccles suffers from regular serious rush-hour congestion. How can she support transport authorities in urban areas to work with neighbouring authorities to ensure a strategic approach is taken across commuter belts to alleviate congestion?
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I assure him that the Government are committed to improving local transport across individual local authority boundaries. We have provided more than £1 billion in funding to the Greater Manchester combined authority in his area, which takes a strategic approach to managing transport across its region. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has also set out ambitious measures in the recent “English Devolution” White Paper to support more joined-up running of local transport networks, which people rely upon every day.
I welcome the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box, and say happy birthday to the Aviation Minister. Buses in my constituency are not adequate and the situation has been made worse since the £2 fare cap was lifted. Local authorities in Bath want to improve the situation. They want to franchise bus services themselves, but their hands are tied by the Labour West of England combined authority Mayor, who refuses to do so. What should local authorities such as Bath do?
The Government stepped in to ensure that bus fares would not explode at the beginning of this year, when the £2 fare cap that the previous Government legislated for ran out. In the worst-case scenario, costs on some services could have increased by 650%, and it was important that we took that action to ensure such fare rises were avoidable. I advise her local authority to work through any issues with the regional mayor. It is vital that we see transport authorities of all types collaborating to ensure that we have good, high-frequency, high-quality bus services for local people to go about their daily lives.
May I also welcome the Secretary of State to her place? It is a delight to see her there. I wonder if she might help me. In circumstances where a mayor does not want to embrace the opportunities of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill and fully re-regulate, as in the Tees Valley, will she give some consideration to providing a power in forthcoming legislation for the public to overreach that? Will she consider that option?
A number of options are outlined in the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place yesterday, including franchising options, enhanced local bus partnerships and municipal ownership of bus companies. While my hon. Friend’s suggestion is not currently in the Bill, I gently point out to him that there would have to be an authority to let contracts, including with private providers. While I am happy to explore options, we need to think through the practicalities of suggestions such as his.
Cullompton and Wellington railway stations were two of the most advanced of all the programmes in the restoring your railway fund. The existing local transport authorities have already invested in getting us to the stage of a full business case, with a high benefit-cost ratio of 3.67. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this programme is in no way disadvantaged compared with those transport authorities in urban areas that have mayors?
We consider business cases for rail enhancements fairly, and no undue advantage would be given to the areas that the hon. Gentleman suggested. I was fortunate in my first couple of weeks in this job to visit the opening of the Northumberland line, which provides services up to Ashington. I know what an invaluable difference the improved connectivity on the rail network can provide. I would be happy to talk to him about his schemes.
The Government are determined to help local authorities in England to tackle the highways maintenance backlog that is the result of a decade of under-investment by the previous Government. We are making an immediate start by providing an extra £500 million next year—an increase of nearly 50% compared with the current financial year.
The A1 is a vital road link for the Scottish Borders and Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom, and Labour’s decision to scrap much-needed improvements will harm the local economy and stop businesses investing in jobs. The local Labour MP, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), has said he was “disappointed and frustrated” by the decision of his Labour colleagues. What do the Labour Government have against car drivers and truck users on roads in rural Scotland?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have nothing against car drivers and truck users. We appreciate the long-standing local desire for dualling the A1 from Morpeth to Ellingham, but I am sorry to say that in the assessment we carried out post the general election, it represented poor value for money. There have been several delays to the development consent order decision and the contractors were decommissioned more than two years ago. In that time, scheme costs have risen significantly, making the scheme even less affordable and further worsening the value for money. Having said that, I recognise that there are safety issues on the existing route, which we will need to look at carefully, as we would with any other part of the network. However, that alone does not warrant the dualling scheme.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to her place. Potholes represent a serious issue in Basingstoke, with many constituents telling me of damaged vehicles and even physical injuries. The AA, which is based in Basingstoke, highlights inconsistent standards across the country, with some potholes left unaddressed for longer than others. The Pothole Partnership urges UK-wide standards and permanent repairs over temporary fixes. I welcome the Government’s additional investment to tackle this issue, but will the Secretary of State consider ensuring that councils adopt common standards so that communities such as Basingstoke no longer face dangerous, crumbling roads?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the damage that potholes can cause for all road users. We have committed record money to fixing this issue and to enabling councils to get on with this work. All local authorities should have their own standards of road maintenance service and inspection in line with local needs and priorities. However, I do want to update the Department’s guidance to local authorities on how best to look after their highways networks and ensure best practice is followed, and so that there are common minimum standards so that all road users know what they can expect.
I also welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to her place. Many of my constituents in Wolverhampton West complain not only about the number of potholes in our roads but about the standard of repairs, with some potholes reappearing shortly after they have been repaired. While the £1.6 billion of funding for councils is very welcome, will she please confirm what other steps the Government are taking to ensure that our roads are always well maintained to avoid the risks of injury to people and damage to vehicles?
We agree that local authorities should not just patch potholes, but focus on long-term preventive programmes for repairing and maintaining all parts of the highway network, including footpaths, pavements and bridges. We will require local authorities to follow best practice to get the full funding uplift, and we will update the guidance document “Well-managed Highway Infrastructure: A Code of Practice” to support local authorities in that and to emphasise the importance of proactive preventive measures.
Potholes plague the streets of Thurrock and are a daily reminder of 14 years of Conservative neglect. Stifford Clays, where my own tentative attempts to learn to drive took place, is particularly bad, but the effects are felt throughout my constituency. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is tackling this issue, with £4 million committed for Thurrock specifically. Will she tell me how much motorists in Thurrock could save under Labour’s plans?
Our broken roads have long been a national embarrassment, and a proper fund to fix our roads has long been overdue. In answer to my hon. Friend’s specific question, RAC data shows that the average cost of pothole-related damage to vehicles is about £500, with severe repairs often costing much more. The Government’s extra funding for local highways maintenance next year could therefore save individual motorists in Thurrock hundreds of pounds, if not more.
Local residents tell me of their frustration at the epidemic level of potholes across my constituency after 14 years of failure to grasp the problem. Motorists are all too often the ones who will pay the price. Does the Secretary of State agree that local councils like Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle in my constituency will benefit from proper long-term funding to allow them to plan works and carry out repairs?
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We need to get the basics right as a country, and fixing our roads is the first step to getting our economy firing on all cylinders. We did see a decade of decline and under-investment under the previous Conservative Government. The additional £500 million that we have allocated, if it were all used to fill potholes, would fill another 7 million potholes every year, smashing our manifesto commitment to provide funding for an extra 1 million.
Whether on Silverdale Road, Rodmill Drive, Quebec Close or Ceylon Place, potholes litter our roads in Eastbourne after years of neglect by the Conservative county council. Indeed, the Mirzas at my local garage have replaced my tyre a number of times, and I thank them for it. We also have a ridiculous situation where potholes right next to each other are not sorted out at the same time. Will the Secretary of State urge East Sussex county council to stop that wasteful practice and ensure that Eastbourne benefits from its fair share of the nearly £300 million granted to the south-east to tackle potholes?
I have been clear that local transport authorities should use the money in a way that provides excellent value for money for the taxpayer, and the situation that the hon. Member described does concern me. We have waited a long time for this level of investment to come forward, and I am keen to see local authorities such as his cracking on with the job and making sure that motorists—all road users, for that matter—have safe, smooth roads that they can travel on.
The roads in Wokingham, like everywhere else in the country, have deteriorated in the last few years. We need to stop potholes, not just fix them, and that means regularly resurfacing roads. The unfunded backlog of resurfacing left by the Conservatives in Wokingham is about £16 million and getting bigger; nationally, it is £14 billion. When will the Minister’s Department deliver proper funding for Wokingham’s roads?
I disagree slightly with the hon. Gentleman, because I think a £500 million uplift is proper funding—it represents, on average, a 40% increase, and it takes the overall amount of funding up to £1.8 billion. However, I do agree with his substantive point. Some of this money should be used for proactive preventative road resurfacing, because in some cases that will provide the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Hundreds of local authority roads across the country include half-joint bridges built in the 1960s and 1970s that are now dangerously unsafe. They include the Brigsteer Road and Underbarrow Road bridges leading out of Kendal, which have been closed for the last six months, causing great inconvenience to the local community. They were built with Government funding 50 or 60 years ago, but local councils are unable to replace them with the funds available to them now. Will the Secretary of State meet representatives of Westmorland and Furness council as a matter of urgency, so that the bridges can be reopened and our communities can be reconnected quickly?
I will ask my colleague the Minister for the Future of Roads to have that meeting with the council. However, the additional money that we have provided, and the individual allocations that were announced before Christmas, can be used not just for road maintenance, but for bridges and pavements.
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her post, and look forward to helping her to do an excellent job.
As we can see following the last few days of flooding, changing weather patterns are damaging our roads and increasing potholes. The last Government allocated an additional £8 billion for road improvements, paid for by the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2, yet all we have seen from Labour is a commitment of £1.8 billion for this financial year. Will the Secretary of State commit to matching the additional £8 billion for road maintenance?
We are more than matching the commitments made by the previous Government. Let me say gently to the hon. Gentleman that his commitment in respect of resurfacing roads falls into exactly the same category as the promise to provide 40 new hospitals, and a range of other commitments that proved not to be worth the paper they were written on. They were fantasy figures, unlike the Labour party’s promise to deliver change. An additional £500 million is coming into our highways maintenance budgets, so that people across the country can see that change delivered to their local areas.
I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I am not sure whether that was a commitment to match the £8 billion, or whether the Secretary of State considered it to be a fantasy commitment. However, it is not just the £8 billion investment that seems to have gone missing. As soon as they were in power, the Labour Government cancelled the A27 bypass, the Stonehenge tunnel, improvements to the A47 in Great Yarmouth, the A1 from Morpeth to Ellingham, junction 8 of the M27 at Southampton, and other projects. That is £3.3 billion axed from works to help motorists. What have they done with the money? Has Labour prioritised pay rises for unions over improving roads and helping motorists?
The truth of the matter is that when this Government came to office, we inherited a raft of half-baked, unfunded schemes that we are having to work through to provide a sensible pipeline of infrastructure improvements for our country. I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman about investment in our national infrastructure.
Transport is central to this Government’s plans for rebuilding Britain and growing our economy. We are committed to investing in the rail capacity needed to support that growth. This means improving performance and timetables to make the best use of the capacity we have, but it also means investing in new and improved infrastructure, such as High Speed 2, the trans-Pennine route upgrade and East West Rail.
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer and welcome her to her place. Ely Junction is a major bottleneck in our rail network and the Ely area capacity enhancement scheme is designed to improve that. If the scheme goes ahead, it could deliver over a quarter of a million extra rail passenger journeys and take 98,000 lorry journeys off the road every year. It will also help the midlands and the north grow their economies, because it will improve freight transport to and from ports, the midlands and the north. To add to all those benefits, the business case stacks up: every pound invested will deliver nearly £5 of benefits. Will the Minister—
Order. The question is far too long— I think the hon. Lady needs to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject. The Secretary of State can grasp the sense of the question.
I understand how passionately the hon. Lady feels about the scheme, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood) responded to her written parliamentary question on the subject at the end of November. Projects like this one, in areas like hers, have the potential to contribute to the Government’s plans to deliver economic growth. She will know that the spending review is coming up, so a decision on the scheme and any potential timetable will be subject to the outcome of that review.
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place and I look forward to working with her.
The original vision for HS2 was to link London with the midlands and the north, and to address the growing capacity challenge on the west coast main line with a whole new rail line. The last Government panicked and mothballed much of the project because of cost overruns on phase 1, thus incurring yet further costs. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to get a grip on the phase 1 cost overruns, but do the Government plan to deliver a rail solution linking phase 1, north of Birmingham, to the rest of the country, thus delivering the Government’s vision to drive growth for the whole country?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election as Chair of the Transport Committee. She will be formidable and I look forward to working with her.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend raises the question of the mess we inherited from the Conservative Government on HS2 and rail connectivity in the north. When we entered Government in July, we found a rag-bag collection of half- baked, unfunded spending commitments for rail schemes up and down the country. The previous Government drew up their Network North plans on the back of a napkin. As part of the spending review, we have started the hard work of identifying a realistic pipeline of schemes that is affordable and will deliver better connectivity in partnership with local leaders.
I welcome the Secretary of State to her new position. My party knows her well from her hard work on London’s transport network. We look forward to continuing the constructive relationship we had with her then and with her predecessor in this House.
May I take this opportunity to express my sadness at the passing of my Liberal Democrat transport colleague, Baroness Jenny Randerson? Jenny was a force of nature, intelligent, kind, hard-working and principled, with a mischievous wit and love of life. I learned a huge amount from her in the few months we worked together, and will miss her deeply.
Improving transport links to Wales was an issue close to Baroness Randerson’s heart, and one she regularly pressed in the other House. Will the Secretary of State review the Tories’ decision to class HS2 as an England and Wales project, thus depriving Wales of billions of pounds of Barnett formula funding, and will she commit to a high-speed rail link from Birmingham to Crewe to ensure that mid and north Wales can at least share the benefits of HS2?
May I extend my condolences and those of the Government to the family of Baroness Randerson? I know she was a deeply loved and highly respected colleague to many.
On the hon. Gentleman’s substantive question, I have already met Ken Skates, the Welsh Minister for Transport, and I am working closely with the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that we bring public transport improvements to Wales, which I hope will be Baroness Randerson’s lasting legacy.
Transport is at the heart of this Government’s plan for change. Since I joined the Department more than a month ago, we have introduced the Bus Services Bill, which will give transport authorities across the country the tools to take back control of local services. We are bringing clarity and confidence to our automotive industry, with a consultation on how we will restore the 2030 phase-out date for new petrol and diesel cars. We have also confirmed the first three train operators that will be brought under public control later this year.
We have delivered record funding to protect vital bus routes and keep fairs capped, and we smashed our manifesto target with a £1.6 billion investment to repair 7 million more potholes on Britain’s broken roads. I am determined that our transport system delivers reliable, accessible journeys for all; enables the construction of millions of new homes; supports the jobs and industries of the future; and enables rising living standards for everyone in every part of Britain.
On those new bus routes, within the last hour, Stagecoach East has issued a statement about the delayed new tiger bus routes, citing the decision by Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority to retender the routes, inconsistencies in the award letter, concerns over the legality of the operation and the increased cost due to the Government’s national insurance increase as reasons for the delay until at least May. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that bus services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are not being managed effectively by the Labour mayor?
I am happy to speak further with the hon. Gentleman about his concerns regarding local bus services. I know how critical bus services are for young people wanting to get to school, people wanting to get to work and older people wanting to access vital lifeline services. I am happy to meet him to talk in more detail about his local concerns.
I was appalled to discover this morning that I have known the Secretary of State for the thick end of two decades. We have had various exchanges in various other fora, but this is our first exchange across the Dispatch Box in this House. I therefore warmly congratulate her on her appointment and welcome her to her place.
The Government promised to deliver more reliable rail services, but over Christmas, what did we see? Chaos, cancellation and delays. The train drivers, having accepted the Government’s no-strings pay deal, chose to turn down overtime shifts, leaving passengers stranded and left in the cold. The Government’s no-strings agreement was supposed to bring stability to the railways, but it did the exact opposite, causing major disruption. Will the Secretary of State admit that the pay deal that they thought would improve reliability in fact only made services worse?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I remember those days on the London Councils transport and environment committee. I hope he does not mind my saying that both he and I have a little bit more grey hair since then, which is not necessarily helped by this new job.
On the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I must vehemently disagree with him. The reality is that this Government acted when the previous one refused to do so, to put an end to the industrial action that was blighting our railways. We had a two-year national rail strike that ground down everyone who travelled or worked on the railways, at a cost of £850 million in lost revenue. He might take a lesson from the former Conservative Rail Minister, the former Member for Bexhill and Battle—
Order. I say to the Secretary of State gently that I had wanted to welcome her today, but I have to get through a lot of Members. We are on topicals, which are short and punchy. I call the shadow Secretary of State to give us a good example.
I note the Secretary of State’s answer, but, in the real world, we know that the Government’s union paymasters will keep pushing for more. Labour’s plans to scrap the minimum service levels will give the unions more power to hold the railways hostage. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Christmas chaos will not be a one-off, and will in fact be the start of an ongoing decline in reliability?
We have had decades of chaos on the railways, and railways that simply did not work for people. What is needed is a fundamental reset with the trade unions to deliver improvements for passenger services.
I know you could go on, but I am sure the Minister can answer that.
I, along with the Rail Minister, will be meeting the management of Northern Rail before the end of this month.
The nationalisation of ScotRail has been another SNP transport fiasco. The Scottish Government’s flagship £25 million scheme to boost the amount of freight transported by rail failed to achieve growth. Their mismanagement of ScotRail and their own budget has led to a double-whammy price hike for passengers, with the return of peak fares at the same time as price rises. Does the Secretary of State agree that, at a time when we need better trains to boost growth and reduce emissions, the SNP has instead consigned Scotland to a spiral of decline and let my constituents down?
I agree. We will not make the same mistakes when we take train operating companies into public ownership. We will do it properly. It is a massive undertaking, but we will make our railways a system for the whole country to be proud of.
York’s advanced digital and advanced rail cluster can really boost our economy with the innovations that it is bringing, as well as providing 5,500 jobs in York. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can bring it into her strategy for developing the rail industry?
I will. I know that my hon. Friend represents the proud railway city of York, as I represent the proud railway town of Swindon. I look forward to having that meeting with her.
In South Shields, not only is our public transport expensive, we have to suffer constant metro delays, tunnel closures and replacement bus breakdowns. This Christmas, our roads were completely cut off. Will my right hon. Friend please meet me to discuss these long-standing ongoing issues?
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I have already met a number of Members of Parliament in the Gateshead area about some of the recent problems with the flyover, and met the Mayor for the region.
When HS2 was cancelled, the last Government set aside £1 billion for Teesside to protect our iconic transporter bridge, deliver a new train station for Teesside Park, upgrade the train station at Thornaby, and much more. We are six months in now. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether we will get the money, or is the Labour party pulling the plug on investment in Teesside?
We are six months in. The Conservative party had 14 years. Those promises are worth nothing without a plan to deliver.
In Hastings, Rye and the villages, we have some of the worst potholes in the country, so I welcome the record £21 million awarded to east Sussex to fill potholes. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling on Conservative-run East Sussex county council to fill the potholes, and ensure that Hastings and Rye gets its fair share of that funding?
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for her local area, and I fully endorse her efforts to get money to fix the broken roads in her constituency.
In Hale and Badshot Lea, in the northernmost parts of my constituency, many residents can only get into Farnham town centre using the bus service. There is concern, given the increased amount of building, and future building under the new Government’s plans, that bus services will not be adequate. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the plans for north Farnham, and Badshot Lea and Hale?
While welcoming rail renationalisation, may I ask what can be done to expedite investment in crucial rail infrastructure developments, such as the Haughley junction in my constituency, taking traffic off the A14 and possibly facilitating Bury St Edmunds to London trains? Was the previous Prime Minister’s promise to redeploy funds from the cancelled HS2 realistic?
We spend about £2 billion a year on rail enhancement projects. We will be looking carefully through the spending review at all proposals that get freight off the roads and increase the availability of passenger services.
I am delighted to see that you are proudly wearing the newly formed Royal Army Medical Service tie, Mr Speaker.
In Solihull West and Shirley, the new year has been welcomed by increases in bus fares and reductions in services. In places such as Cheswick Green, people are faced with choosing between either more expensive and difficult journeys or not being able to get to work, the shops or college. Given the Government’s stated ambitions, what assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact of the policy?
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. In my first public meeting after my election, residents in Knebworth called for more fast train services. We got some, but there has been poor reliability. Will she meet me to discuss those issues?
We have an anomalous situation in Spelthorne whereby someone can get six London red buses on an Oyster card, but they cannot get the train out to the stations at the end of the line. Major employers, such as BP and Shepperton Studios, are sending buses up the line to bring down those people who cannot use an Oyster card. As the Secretary of State will own South Western Railway and is brilliant with Transport for London, could she please get Spelthorne into the Oyster zone?
We are exploring how we can extend pay-as-you-go to other stations in the south-east. I must admit that my mental map is not good enough to identify every station yet, but we share that ambition to make it easier for people to use the railways across the south-east region.
This weekend, grassroots campaigners in Newquay will meet to oppose the privatisation of car park charge enforcement in Newquay and Cornwall more widely. Will the Secretary of State and colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government meet me to discuss how councils can retain more of that profit locally, instead of sending it up-country to often unscrupulous and usurious operators?
The residents of Wareham, just along from Bournemouth, have been trying to get electronic gates for 20 years. Network Rail’s latest excuse is that it is for the Office of Rail and Road, and the Office of Rail and Road says that it is for Network Rail. Will the Secretary of State meet me so that we can bang heads together and get this resolved once and for all?
I will certainly ask the Rail Minister to take that meeting.
Upgrading Ely junction would deliver more passenger services to King’s Lynn in my constituency, boost freight and unlock benefits of £5 for every £1 invested. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that is a priority in the Department’s bid for the spending review?
We are working on a whole range of schemes in respect of the spending review, and I will provide the hon. Gentleman with more information as soon as I have it.
Last year, Derbyshire was judged to be the worst county in the country for potholes, so one would think that the county council would welcome the record £76 million investment into our roads. Can the Minister assure me that that money will make a real difference to our roads and pave the way for a better Britain?
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsGovernment have commenced a consultation on phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, driving forward the commitment made in our manifesto, supporting delivery of both our clean energy mission and our economic growth mission.
The previous Government caused significant harm to the industry by moving goalposts on phase-out dates, creating doubt in the minds of investors and boardrooms and putting at risk the billions of pounds of committed investment in the automotive sector and in the charge point sector. Our plans will restore clarity for manufacturers, provide renewed confidence for charging infrastructure investors and give confidence to consumers considering making the switch. No new petrol or diesel cars will be sold after 2030. All new cars and vans will need to be 100% zero emission by 2035.
The need to transition away from a reliance on fossil fuels has never been clearer, and the transition to zero emission vehicles will play a critical role in quickly reducing carbon emissions and improving our energy security. It is not just an environmental necessity but an opportunity for the UK to lead in cutting-edge technologies, representing a significant industrial opportunity for the UK. This shift promises cleaner air and quieter streets, enhancing quality of life in our communities. British people and businesses are already embracing electric vehicles because they are cheaper to run, great to drive and simpler to maintain.
This consultation marks a new phase of collaboration between the Government and the automotive and charging sectors as we support and work together with industry to grasp the opportunities of this ambitious and transformative shift—ensuring the prosperity and security of our nation, with higher growth, better jobs, and cheaper bills. This transformation is a challenge we can meet by working together.
The consultation is an opportunity to consider stakeholders’ preferences on technology choices and the types of vehicles permitted between 2030 and 2035 alongside ZEVs. It commits to maintaining the trajectories in the ZEV mandate, while considering how the current arrangements and flexibilities are working, and what steps can be taken to support domestic manufacturing, and cement the UK’s position as one of the major European markets for ZEVs.
In order to support the transition, we need to continue to accelerate the roll-out of charging infrastructure right across the country, building on significant deployment to date. I have therefore also announced a broad package of measures that will make charging infrastructure quicker and easier to install, supporting £6 billion of private investment out to 2030. This includes simplifying planning rules, publishing our review to speed up grid connections, and continuing to provide resource funding for local councils up and down the country.
These new policies build on over £2.3 billion of Government support to UK manufacturers and consumers to transition to zero emission vehicles.
We will work in partnership with the sector to harness the opportunity this transition represents to support thriving automotive and charging sectors, achieve our clean energy superpower mission, and build a prosperous, sustainable future.
[HCWS349]
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsThis statement confirms that it has been necessary to extend the deadline for the decision for the London Luton Airport development consent order under the Planning Act 2008.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, a decision must be made within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless the power under section 107(3) to extend the deadline is exercised and a statement is made to Parliament announcing the new deadline.
The examining authority’s report on the London Luton Airport development consent order application was received on 10 May 2024. The current deadline for a decision is 3 January 2025, having been extended by way of written ministerial statements from the original deadline of 10 August 2024. The deadline for the decision is to be further extended to 3 April 2025—an extension of three months. The reason for the extension is to allow the newly appointed Secretary of State appropriate time to fully consider this complex application before making a final determination. The Department will however endeavour to issue a decision ahead of the deadline above where possible.
The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the final decision on whether to give development consent for the above application.
[HCWS329]
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsI am today announcing the publication of the first report to Parliament on the progress of High Speed 2 from this Government.
This new Government are committed to transparency on HS2 and keeping parliamentarians informed of both the issues the programme is facing, the position we have inherited and its progress towards delivering rail capacity and passenger benefits between London and the west midlands (phase 1). Since coming into Government, we have announced urgent measures to get a grip on HS2’s costs and ensure taxpayers’ money is put to good use and we will be working closely with the new CEO, Mark Wild, to deliver the remaining work as cost-effectively as possible, including setting a realistic budget and schedule.
HS2 phase 1 is a vital part of the Government’s mission to rebuild Britain, and the Government have been clear that we need to deliver infrastructure that works for the whole country. Right now HS2 supports 31,000 jobs and when completed, it will give faster, more reliable and frequent rail services between the west midlands and London, promoting economic growth and opportunities for workers, releasing capacity to meet increasing demand on regional and local services, and stimulating new jobs and houses around its new stations in Birmingham, Solihull and London.
This report, which covers data reported by HS2 Ltd to the end of September 2024, provides information about the key decisions taken since the new Government were formed in July, and the progress made in delivering phase 1. The Government intend to publish these updates broadly every six months.
I will place a copy of the full report in the Libraries of both Houses. This will also be available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS331]