(3 days, 23 hours ago)
Written StatementsFollowing my statement in December last year, I can confirm to the House that on Sunday 25 May 2025, South Western Railway’s services will transfer into public ownership.
South Western Railway’s services are the first to transfer to public ownership under the Passenger Railways Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, a landmark piece of legislation passed by Parliament in November. From Sunday, operations will be run by a new public sector operator—South Western Railway Ltd. For now, this will be a subsidiary of the public corporation DfT Operator Ltd, which will eventually transfer into Great British Railways, once established.
C2C’s services will be next to transfer into public ownership on 20 July 2025, and as previously announced, I have issued an expiry notice to Greater Anglia, confirming that their contract with the Department will now expire on 12 October 2025. Greater Anglia’s services will transfer into public ownership on this date.
Sunday marks a watershed moment in the Government’s plan to return the railways to the service of passengers and reform our broken railways, ending 30 years of fragmentation. It delivers on our manifesto commitment to bring passenger services back into public control and put passengers firmly at the heart of the railways.
Public ownership will ensure services are run in the interests of passengers, not shareholders, and is a vital step in enabling the Government to bring track and train together. But public ownership alone is not a silver bullet and will not fix the structural problems hindering the railways currently. That will take time.
Under this Government’s plan to unify track and train under one organisation, GBR will be the single “directing mind” for the railway, putting passengers and customers first, rebuilding trust in the railway and simplifying the industry.
In February, the Government’s consultation on the Railways Bill outlined plans to establish GBR, which will consolidate the 14 different train operating companies, Network Rail and DfTO into a single organisation. The Railways Bill will be laid before Parliament in this parliamentary Session, and I expect GBR to be operational around 12 months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
[HCWS666]
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberEconomic growth is this Government’s top priority, and a reliable, well-connected transport network is critical to driving prosperity. That means delivering local priorities in places such as Huddersfield and Hyndburn, including through West Yorkshire’s £830 million city region sustainable transport settlement and the local transport grant for Lancashire combined county authority.
The Government have rightly prioritised rail as a key factor in the future viability of our transport infrastructure. There exists in Hyndburn an outstanding opportunity to create a freight rail terminal that would fit with the Department for Transport’s targets for increasing rail freight capacity by 75%. The proposal also adds value in increasing east-west rail freight capacity, which must currently pass through Manchester. Sadly, no progress was made on this under the last Government. Does the Secretary of State agree that a north-west freight strategy should be a priority, and will she meet me to explore the potential of this as a priority project in the north-west?
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of rail freight, and I am clear that with a reformed railway, we must do more to shift freight from the roads to rail. I am keen that Network Rail works collaboratively with industry to develop terminals where there is either current demand or the potential for future growth. If there is viable interest in developing this land, my officials and Network Rail would be happy to engage with interested parties.
I welcome the funding commitments for transport in Huddersfield, including rail upgrades to the Penistone line and the trans-Pennine route, which are very much needed. However, during a coffee morning with residents last week, the main issue discussed was the reliability of bus services and the need for integrated transport. Can the Minister outline how she is supporting our West Yorkshire Mayor in ensuring that transport-led economic growth includes bus services and is felt across all neighbourhoods and communities in Huddersfield?
I am not surprised to hear that buses are top of the agenda for my hon. Friend’s constituents. Reliable, affordable bus services will be essential for so many of those she represents, and I was particularly delighted to see the successful launch this week of Mayor Tracy Brabin’s Weaver bus network. The Government are investing £36 million in West Yorkshire’s buses. That is in addition to the £830 million we are spending in the region to improve local transport infrastructure and the rail investment we are making as part of the trans-Pennine route upgrade.
The Secretary of State knows that High Speed 2’s central purpose is to deliver economic growth, but she knows, too, that it is taking far longer and costing far more to deliver than anyone expected. Given that projects of the scale of HS2 require parliamentary approval, is it not important that Parliament has accurate estimates of how much the project will cost and how long it will take to deliver? Will she commission a properly independent and thorough review of why the budget for HS2 has increased so often and the timetable has expanded so often?
I will be providing updates to the House on the emerging cost position and opening window. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, this Government have appointed a new chief executive of HS2, Mark Wild, who is conducting an ongoing review. We have also reintroduced ministerial oversight, which was sorely lacking under the Conservative party’s leadership. I recognise that this is an important issue, and we are doing all we can to deliver the rest of this railway at the lowest reasonable cost to the taxpayer, so that people can enjoy excellent rail services in the future.
The Transport Secretary recently refused to commit to keeping the £3 cap on bus fares outside London beyond the end of this year, leaving many in rural areas worried about how much more they will end up having to pay to get to work. Residents across my constituency have already seen vital routes scrapped or scaled back, holding back economic growth. Can the Transport Secretary explain what support will be made available to not only keep rural fares down but restore lost services?
The hon. Lady will know that this Government stepped in to prevent soaring bus fare increases, given the last Government’s decision to only fund a bus fare cap until the end of last year. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can chunter, but the truth of the matter is that it was fantasy money, and the money was not allocated to fund that bus fare cap. We are in an ongoing process, through the spending review. I appreciate the importance of affordable, reliable bus services, and we will do all we can to ensure that people can continue to enjoy the bus network that they need.
Greater Anglia supports economic growth in the east of England with modern, quiet, fast trains, paid for by £2 billion of private sector investment. Its service is the most punctual in the country, it is popular with its passengers, and it is run so efficiently that instead of costing the taxpayer, it pays money into the Treasury. It is currently train operator of the year. Greater Anglia knows that nationalisation is coming, and it has offered to extend its operations to allow the Government to focus on the worst performing operators first. Why did the Government refuse? Is the Secretary of State focused on improving the lives of passengers, or is it an ideological determination to put the unions back in charge of the railways?
I really do not know how many times I have to say this to the hon. Gentleman. I met him a couple of days ago, and I explained that our process for bringing train operating companies into public ownership is designed to offer best value for money to the taxpayer. We will not be buying out failing private sector operators by breaking contracts early. He is right to say that Greater Anglia provides an excellent service, and I am confident we will build on that when it comes into public ownership in October.
Perhaps the Secretary of State did not understand the nature of the offer from Greater Anglia. It was not expecting to be bought out; it was offering to continue its current arrangements for a couple of years.
In a previous answer, the Secretary of State said to me that the benefit of rail nationalisation will be the £150 million of efficiency savings. Let’s see how that is going. Her first nationalisation will be South Western Railway in two weeks’ time. That new service will need trains, yet The Telegraph has revealed that inept contract negotiations by her Department, where there was no effective competition, mean that the cost of re-leasing the same trains is increasing by £250 million over five years. Are those the efficiency savings she had in mind?
The up to £150 million of savings that the taxpayer can enjoy as a result of train operating companies coming back into public ownership are the saved management fees that we are currently paying to private sector operators, and efficiencies will be delivered on top of that.
On the substantive issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about South Western Railway, the cost of renewing rolling stock leases has been fully and properly budgeted for, with successful commercial negotiations recently concluded. The franchising process under his Government saw some “buy now, pay later” deals done on rolling stock, where costs were always expected to increase. I think that approach was deeply dubious, but that was the short-termist, ill-thought-through approach of his Government, and we are now having to clear up that mess.
A skilled workforce is key to delivering the railways that passengers need, and I am working closely with colleagues across Government to ensure that we train up the right people in the right way for the jobs of the future. As my hon. Friend will know from our visit to Derby last week, we are also taking action to ensure that we attract younger talent into the industry, by lowering the age at which someone can become a train driver to 18.
Derby is the centre of the largest rail cluster in Europe—an east midlands cluster employing 45,000 people. There is an incredible range of roles in the sector, from engineering to driving, digital to welding, advanced manufacturing to customer services, and many more. However, with a third of workers in the rail sector aged 50 or over, it faces a significant shortage of rail skills in the future. What role can Great British Railways, with its headquarters in Derby, play in ensuring that we have the skills we need for the future?
Developing an industry workforce plan will be a key priority for Great British Railways, and I am confident that we will be making the most of the expertise that already exists in places such as Derby. The fact that Derby will soon become the new national headquarters of GBR will mean more high-skilled jobs for a city that is already brimming with rail industry talent. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and local leaders on maximising the opportunities that the creation of GBR presents.
Despite recent improvements, the performance of Avanti West Coast’s services in north Wales is still not good enough. Poor Network Rail infrastructure reliability also remains an issue. North Wales and its surrounding regions have such huge potential, so I am actively engaged with the Welsh Government on plans to create a transport system that meets the needs of all our communities and delivers economic growth.
Rail plays a vital role in the north Wales economy, so I welcome the recent announcement of 12 additional services per week between Holyhead and London. However, that remains a shadow of the pre-covid timetable, which saw up to 14 daily direct services. The north Wales line regularly sees more cancellations and poorer reliability than other parts of the west coast franchise. It is vital that with economic growth, tourism and access to employment across north Wales and beyond, we see a return to a more frequent and reliable service pattern. What measures is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that that happens?
The uplift in service levels between London and Holyhead from this Sunday is indeed welcome, and I agree that a reliable service being delivered for the passengers of north Wales is vital for economic growth. I recognise that Wales has not seen its fair share of funding historically, and I am committed to continued rail infrastructure investment in Wales to release capacity and improve reliability.
The midlands rail hub was backed by the previous Government. It will unlock and drive economic growth across the west midlands and beyond, including into Wales, and improve the performance of existing rail services. When will the Secretary of State make an announcement in her review of that project, or is this just another example of the Treasury reversing or holding up investment in our region?
I can see that Mr Speaker is smiling; I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her ingenuity in working in a question about the midlands. She is right to talk about the benefits of the midlands rail hub. She will be aware that a spending review process is under way, and I anticipate being able to say more on that project in due course.
In March, we took the decision to approve National Highways’ planning application for the lower Thames crossing, which is a big step forward for the project and ends decades of inaction by previous Governments. Ahead of construction, my officials and National Highways are exploring all funding options, including private finance. As with all capital projects, spending decisions are subject to the spending review process.
I welcome that response, the certainty the decision has provided to people living in the Thames estuary, and the visit yesterday to supply-chain businesses by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Will the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that she will meet me and a delegation of Kent and south-east London MPs to discuss how we can ensure that investment and skills are secured for local supply chains and the development of further education colleges?
I would be very happy to have that meeting with my hon. Friend and his colleagues.
After years of dither and delay, we are taking bold action to take the brakes off growth, create jobs and get Britain moving. Last week, we announced a lower minimum age for train drivers to future-proof our railways and prevent frustrating cancellations, and we have granted planning permission for the lower Thames crossing, a strategic freight route between the south-east and the rest of the country.
We are also strengthening our aviation industry. Planning approval has been given for the expansion of Luton airport, a final decision on Gatwick will be made as soon as possible, following the airport’s submission of further information, and we look forward to receiving proposals for a third runway at Heathrow later this summer. Finally, we introduced the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill yesterday, giving confidence to the industry as it charts a green future.
These measures show how we are delivering on our plan for change: driving opportunity, creating better journeys and improving living standards up and down the country.
I thank the Secretary of State for setting out those positive opportunities for the future. Air passenger duty adversely impacts economic opportunity for companies in Northern Ireland. To continue the positivity from the Secretary of State, would she commit to asking Cabinet colleagues to adjust the block grant for Northern Ireland to allow a reduction in APD in order to enhance connectivity within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
I appreciate the importance of aviation to the Northern Ireland economy and thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this matter. As the Minister responsible for aviation, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) said in answer to substantive questions, airports are currently seeing their busiest times ever. This Government feel that our approach to APD is proportionate given the fantastic demand we are seeing.
At the last transport questions, on 27 March, in the context of the Secretary of State saying on television that some strikes are “necessary”, I pointed out that the trade unions have welcomed her rail reform plans and said that
“a just transition to nationalisation would mean the levelling up of pay and conditions for rail workers.”
The cost of that to the taxpayer would be considerable. When I asked the Secretary of State whether she would
“consider a strike over harmonising pay and conditions to be a necessary strike”,—[Official Report, 27 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 1099.]
she avoided answering the question, which was uncharacteristic of her. I will give her another chance now: would that be a necessary strike?
The answer I gave to the shadow Secretary of State’s previous question was that if, as an operator of the railway, we felt it was necessary to take a strike on grounds of safety, we would, of course, put the safety of the travelling public first—that will always be the case. On the harmonisation of terms and conditions, we need to bring legislation forward to establish Great British Railways. We will have many discussions with our trade union colleagues in a constructive way while ensuring that we provide value for money for the taxpayer.
Following the fire at North Hyde substation that closed Heathrow a few weeks ago, various lines on the London Underground were brought to a standstill by another power outage this week. It is clear that we need to do more to improve the resilience of our transport energy infrastructure, so will the Secretary of State commit to a full review to ensure that these incidents do not keep happening?
A review is being conducted by the National Energy System Operator on the Heathrow substation fire. The interim report has been published, and we expect the full report in June. The Heathrow report is expected to go to its board in May. My Department and I work very closely with all transport operators to ensure that they have robust resilience plans in place. The Government are conducting a review of critical national infrastructure to address the broader question.
The hon. Lady mentioned this to me a couple of days ago when I bumped into her, but I regret to inform her that the Department does not currently have any plans to take forward a development link between Bishops Lydeard and Taunton. I have, however, asked officials to reach out to those at the local authority to discuss the merits of the scheme.
In the ’60s, North West Leicestershire lost its only passenger rail service, the Ivanhoe line. In 2025, my constituents still have no direct access to the rail line. Increasing connectivity of railways is crucial to securing economic growth. Will the Minister share the Department’s plans to improve access to passenger rail for communities with no current access?
The 7.58 am train from Sunbury to Shepperton is used by a lot of schoolchildren in my constituency to get to school, but it was cancelled for four days during a recent six-day period, which meant that children were late for school. That appears on their attendance register, which follows them throughout life. The Secretary of State will own South Western Railway by the end of the month. Will she commit to improving the reliability and punctuality of that section of the line?
With the transfer of South Western trains into public ownership in 10 days’ time, the Government are determined to turn this situation around, but I have to say that we have inherited an abject mess from the train operating company, which over six years has failed to get the new fleet of Arterio 701 trains into service.
I am aware that feasibility studies have been done on 50 Access for All stations, and we are reviewing the outcomes of those studies. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not knowing whether that station in his constituency is one of those 50. I promise him that I will talk to officials about the matter.
In Chorley’s case, work started but it has still not been finished. It was abandoned halfway through.
Will the Secretary of State accept my warm invitation to visit my constituency and sit in traffic with me so she can experience what my constituents experience morning, noon and night on the A27, which is strangling economic growth in the area and preventing investment?
As tempting as the hon. Lady’s invitation is, I regret that I will not be able to do that, and I will not commit the Roads Minister to it either, but we will look at the matters she raises and write to her with an update on the action we think could be taken to improve the situation.
Economic growth requires people to be able to get to work. This morning, yet another road traffic accident happened on the stretch of M6 motorway that goes through my constituency and yours, Mr Speaker. This has a hugely disruptive impact on the mainly small roads around it in my constituency. Yet again, my residents in Longridge, Grimsargh and all the surrounding areas woke up to the prospect of another journey to work that takes two hours instead of 20 minutes, and that is becoming a monthly—if not weekly—occurrence. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what can be done?
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsSustainable aviation fuel is integral to reaching net zero aviation by 2050. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions by around 70% on average over the lifecycle of its production and use when replacing fossil kerosene. It is also an enabler of growth, and can provide good, skilled jobs across the UK.
That is why this Government has taken rapid action to support SAF. Just weeks into office, we reiterated our commitment to the SAF mandate. In November, we signed it into law, and it has been in place since January.
The SAF mandate is the UK’s key policy mechanism to secure demand for SAF. It delivers GHG emission savings by encouraging the use of SAF within the aviation industry. It does this by setting a legal obligation on fuel suppliers in the UK to supply an increasing proportion of SAF over time. Suppliers receive certificates for the SAF they supply. Certificates are issued in proportion to the level of GHG emission reductions that the fuel delivers—that is, the greater the savings, the greater the number of certificates they receive. The SAF mandate started at 2% of total UK jet fuel demand in 2025 and increases linearly to 10% in 2030 and then to 22% in 2040. It could deliver up to 6.3 million tonnes of carbon savings per year by 2040.
We are also committed to developing the UK SAF industry to secure a UK supply of SAF, attract investment and create good green jobs across the UK.
In January, we announced an additional £63 million of funding for the advanced fuels fund, our grant funding programme for UK SAF production, extending the programme for another year.
We are also introducing a revenue certainty mechanism to help attract investment into UK SAF production. Under the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, SAF producers will enter into a private law contract with a Government-backed counterparty. These contracts will set a strike price for SAF. If producers sell their SAF for below the strike price, the counterparty makes payments of the difference; if the SAF is sold for above the strike price, the producer makes payments of the difference to the counterparty. This addresses the most significant constraint on investment in SAF production and sends a clear signal to investors: that this is a serious UK investment opportunity.
This Government have made significant progress towards delivering the revenue certainty mechanism. We announced in the King’s speech that we will be introducing a revenue certainty mechanism Bill in the first Session of this Parliament and will have the legislation in place by the end of 2026 at the very latest.
In 2050, up to 15,000 jobs and £5 billion gross value added in the UK could be supported with future low-carbon fuel production for the domestic and international markets. The revenue certainty mechanism, along with the Government’s modern industrial strategy, will provide a launchpad for this sector to drive growth and investment.
[HCWS608]
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI beg to move,
That this House has considered road maintenance.
For too long, Britain has been plagued by potholes. Too many people in too many parts of the country have had their everyday journeys turned into frustrating obstacle courses by our pockmarked roads. It is worse than that, however, because cratered roads can be dangerous, can make our trips longer and more stressful, and can consume the hard-earned cash of ordinary families. With the average vehicle repair costing a staggering £600, it is little wonder that the AA tells us that this issue is a priority for 96% of drivers. It is not just motorists who are suffering; damaged roads cause problems for cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians, and dodgy pavements are infuriating for those pushing a pram or using a wheelchair.
My right hon. Friend reminds me of the road on which I live, where drivers trying to avoid a pothole in the road went on to the pavement, which led to the pavement being damaged. Does she agree that fixing potholes quickly wills save pavements as well?
At my constituency surgery on Friday, my constituent Helen came to see me because she has had a terrible fall on a badly maintained pavement, and she has really been struggling to find out who is responsible for maintaining the pavement. Does anything in the funding brought forward by this Government enable quick and easy repairs to pavements, so that people like Helen do not have terrible accidents?
Local authorities are free to use the money as they see fit, as long as they are using it in a way that represents value for money for the taxpayer. The money can be used for work on roads, pavements or structures. On the issue of responsibility raised by my hon. Friend’s constituent, that will be for the local highways authority.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I thought I would get in before she gets back into her stride. Can she throw some light on an issue that has puzzled me for some time in my New Forest East constituency? A stretch of road—Southampton Road—is often used as a short cut by very heavy goods vehicles, rather than using the appropriate section of the M27 motorway. These are often very large petrol bowsers, tankers—you name it—and surprise, surprise, the roadway is constantly getting broken up and potholes appear, with all the consequences she describes. Whenever we have raised this with any of the companies to which these heavy vehicles belong, they say, “Well, it’s a public highway, and we’re entitled to drive these vehicles where we want.” Is there any obligation on companies not to do that?
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with the local highways authority. I believe there may be the ability to apply a weight restriction on roads or to curtail the movement of large heavy goods vehicles. That might be something he wishes to raise with the appropriate authority.
I was describing the frustrating state of our roads and pavements. Most importantly, the country’s broken roads have become, sadly, a symbol of the national decline presided over by the previous Government. Our roads have compounded the feeling that nothing works in this country. They tell a story of a country left in a woeful state of disrepair after 14 long years of the previous Government. Roads are the backbone of our transport system; they are the concrete arteries of our local and regional economies. Yet too often they fall way short of the standards we should expect in the 21st century. That is why this Government are taking decisive action to deliver the renewal of our roads.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you might not be aware that there is such a thing as the RAC pothole index. It shows that something like four out of 10 incidents of damage to cars happen as a result of potholes. The owners of vehicles are paying road tax and fuel duty, but they do not have the road infrastructure to support them. I welcome the Government’s support for filling potholes, but can we ensure that the motorist is looked after under this Government?
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is why we have ploughed a record £1.6 billion into roads maintenance, including a £500 million uplift on last year. That is on top of the £200 million or so we are putting in the hands of local leaders in the big city regions, empowering mayoral combined authorities to mend the roads in their communities.
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I want to raise a question that I am often asked. We have spoken about quick fixes. The problem is that we fix a few potholes, but the disrepair reappears. Does she agree that we should focus on resurfacing our roads?
My hon. Friend is completely right. In some cases, preventive comprehensive road resurfacing will be the appropriate action to take.
In total, we are investing around £1.8 billion in fixing our local roads this year.
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for the record investment of this Labour Government in fixing potholes. I particularly welcome the £21 million for East Sussex to fix our roads. Does she share my frustration at the fact that Conservative-run East Sussex county council has told me that it will have a lower highways budget this year than last year, even with that record injection from the Labour Government? We need to track how it is spending that money. I welcome the Government’s commitment to making councils publish reports on how the extra pothole money is spent. I hope it will include a geographical breakdown, so I can make sure that Hastings, Rye and the villages are getting their fair share.
We are asking local authorities to publish a report on their websites by June this year. We are tipping more money into highways maintenance and it is absolutely right that people should see visible results on their roads. And it is right that my hon. Friend is holding her local Conservative council to account.
Our investment in highways maintenance is not a sticking-plaster solution; it is a vital investment that could see councils fixing an extra 7 million potholes next year. That is just the beginning. As I said, for the first time we have asked councils to prove that they are using their funding wisely. By June, they will be asked—as I have just said—to report on how many potholes they have filled and provide an update on the condition of their roads. If we are not satisfied that they are delivering value for money, councils risk losing up to a quarter of their funding uplift.
Surrey has 70,000 potholes—5% of all the nation’s potholes and the most in the country—so I welcome the extra money for potholes, but given the recklessness of the Conservatives in Surrey, how will that help my constituents?
The wider transparency and accountability measures we have announced, whereby we are withholding a quarter of the funding uplift until such time as the local authority has demonstrated how it is using that money, will hopefully be of assistance to both the hon. Lady and her constituents.
It is only right that taxpayers can see how their money is being spent. This new era of accountability and transparency will see their cash being put to good use, and road users will see the results.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
I will just make a little bit of progress. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
The Government will end decades of decay on our roads. We will lift the lid on how taxpayers’ money gets spent. We think that is a crucial part of the solution. I am pleased that this move has been positively received, with the RAC, National Highways, Logistics UK and so many more coming out in support. In fact, Edmund King, president of the AA, described it as
“a…concerted attack on the plague of potholes”.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I could not have put it better myself. It is great to see councils broadly welcoming our approach, too. As Councillor Adam Hug, transport spokesperson for the Local Government Association, put it:
“it’s in everyone’s interests to ensure that public money is well spent.”
From one Adam to another. When I was a child, my late grandmother used to say that you could always tell a drunk person in Harare, because they drove in a straight line. One of my constituents said to me recently that, “In the United Kingdom, we are meant to drive on the left-hand side of the road, but in Newcastle-under-Lyme many people drive on what’s left of the road.” [Laughter.] They are very wise people in north Staffordshire, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is making an excellent speech. What would her two messages be, first to the good people of Newcastle-under-Lyme as we approach Thursday 1 May, and secondly, to the current Conservative leadership of Staffordshire county council?
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents on an excellent sense of humour and perceptiveness in describing the state of the roads in their community. I would say simply to his local authority that it has no excuse. It has the money—get on and fix it.
As much as we want to see councils go full steam ahead on road repairs, I also know that roadworks can be disruptive. We have all felt the frustration of being stuck at temporary traffic lights or by the sound of a pneumatic drill on a Sunday morning. That is why we are clamping down on companies that fail to comply with the rules by doubling a range of fixed-penalty notices, with the worst offences now facing £1,000 fines. Plus, we are extending charges for street works that run into the weekend.
This is not about patching up the problem, either. We want to see repairs that are made to last, so we do not see the same bits of road being dug up over and over again. That means getting it right first time around, championing the best materials and techniques, ensuring contractors are properly managed, and embracing the innovation and new technology that will help us to get the job done while getting proper bang for our buck.
It would be churlish of anybody in this Chamber not to welcome all the money the right hon. Lady says she will spend on roads. It is welcome. I understand there is new technology for a better and more modern way of fixing potholes. I understand it does the job better and is cheaper. If that is the case, I met a manager in my constituency last Friday who told me he would be very interested in that scheme but he does not know about it. Will the Secretary of State share this new way of fixing potholes? If so, everybody in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland could benefit from it.
We are running a number of Live Labs projects to look at how we can best make use of AI and new technology to ensure we get good value for money in delivering roads maintenance. Over the next year, we will be working with the UK Roads Leadership Group to update the code of practice on well-maintained highways. I would be happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman further about what has been learnt.
The important work that we are doing will help to set clear expectations for local authorities up and down the country, meaning cleaner, greener and better roads delivered with the needs of local people in mind.
Laurence, Eileen and the residents of St Quivox have been campaigning for 10 years to cut the speed on the B743 in my constituency. At this weekend’s public meeting, 45 people were delighted to hear that Sergeant Slaven of Police Scotland and South Ayrshire council’s director Kevin Braidwood support their campaign to cut the speed on this dangerous road, which has seen almost 30 accidents in the past decade. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ayrshire Roads Alliance and South Ayrshire council need to urgently reduce the speed limit on this road and work with residents to introduce other traffic calming measures?
Decisions on the appropriate speed limits on their roads are decisions for local highways authorities. I will not pretend to know the detail of what my hon. Friend is talking about, but I will say that safety is an absolute priority for this Government, and that any local highway authority should be taking appropriate decisions to limit the number of people being injured on our roads and, ideally, to eradicate death and serious injury.
This Government’s ambition for road users stretches far beyond local roads. Just last week, we announced £4.8 billion for National Highways to deliver critical road schemes alongside maintaining motorways and major A roads. With this bold investment, which is higher than the average annual funding from the last multi-year settlement, we can get on with vital schemes in construction, such as the A57 Greater Manchester link road, the A428 Black Cat scheme in Cambridgeshire, the A47 Thickthorn scheme near Norwich, unlocking 3,000 new homes—
I hear appreciation from the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench.
Those works will also include the M3 junction 9 scheme in Hampshire, which will support 2,000 more homes. By raising living standards, creating high-quality jobs and kick-starting economic growth, these projects will drive this Government’s plan for change.
We are committed to delivering the road infrastructure that this country needs today, tomorrow and far into the future, and we are already working on the next multi-year road investment strategy to do just that. This is part of our mission to secure the future of Britain’s infrastructure. We are building better roads, creating safer streets and unlocking more efficient transport systems to help businesses to thrive and make life easier for all.
When the right hon. Lady leaves South Swindon and goes into Wiltshire, she will be pleased to note that the £20.7 million the Government have given to Wiltshire has been added to with £22 million put aside by Wiltshire council to maximise the impact. Could she say something about the connectivity between Bristol and Southampton? I was grateful for the meeting with her colleague, the Minister for Future of Roads, but does the Secretary of State recognise that now the A303 scheme is not happening, we need greater investment on north-south connectivity in Wiltshire?
I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman met with my hon. Friend, the Minister for Future of Roads, and I understand that as a follow-up to that meeting, National Highways is looking into the very issue that he describes.
On the point of road safety, after the previous Conservative Government singularly failed to dual the A1 in my constituency, attention must now turn to the safety of that road. Will the Secretary of State and the Roads Minister join me in my constituency to hear the conversations I have been having with National Highways about how we can improve the A1?
I know that the Minister for Future of Roads would be very happy to visit my hon. Friend in his constituency. While we cannot reopen the decision on dualling the A1, we are happy to look at whether smaller-scale schemes could address specific issues around safety and congestion on that very important road.
The public are tired of seeing roads left to deteriorate with no accountability for how maintenance money is spent. This Government are laying the foundations for change, and this is just the beginning. There is so much more to do as we restore our transport system so that people across the country can fulfil their potential in a Britain where everyday journeys are smoother and safer, families are not shelling out for expensive and unexpected repairs, and hard-working people have more money in their pockets—a Britain not defined by disrepair and disarray, but where improved infrastructure becomes a symbol of our national renewal.
Improving connectivity will unlock jobs, growth and opportunities across the country. By fixing our roads, building better infrastructure and ensuring that transport works for all, this Government are securing Britain’s future.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberWith permission, I shall make a statement about the zero emission vehicle mandate. Today, this Government are giving British car makers certainty and support on the transition to electric vehicles, as we set out plans to back industry in the face of global economic headwinds. We have worked in close partnership and at pace with colleagues in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, whom I would like to thank.
The automotive industry is a cornerstone of our economy. It supports over 150,000 jobs and generates £19 billion every year. Today, with Government backing, it must negotiate the turbulence of fresh global economic challenges. For too long, the sector has been held back by a lack of long-term certainty. That changes now. This Government listen and act. We have listened to car manufacturers, large and small, from Sunderland to Solihull, and from Crewe to Coventry. Car makers have told us what they need to not just survive, but thrive. What they want is what we are delivering: practical, sensible reforms that will unlock investment, protect jobs and strengthen Britain’s leadership in the zero emissions transition.
Today, I can confirm that the Government are maintaining our manifesto commitment to phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. I can also reconfirm our commitment to all new cars and vans being 100% zero emission from 2035; there are no changes to the trajectory of the transition set out in the ZEV mandate regulations. We support the role of hybrid vehicles as a crucial stepping-stone in that journey; new full hybrids and plug-in hybrids will be on sale until 2035. That strikes the right balance. We are being firm on our climate commitments, but flexible on how we meet them, because our aim is not to impose change for its own sake, but to enable industry to make the transition in a way that matches supply with demand, and to support businesses, and the jobs that they provide, every step of the way.
We are significantly increasing the flexibility within the ZEV mandate. Manufacturers will have more freedom on how they meet targets, including the ability to sell more EVs towards the end of this decade, when demand is projected to be higher. We are also extending the ability to borrow and repay credits through to 2030, and the ability to earn credits for cleaning up non-ZEV fleets all the way out to 2029, so that companies can manage their pathways more effectively. This recognises the real-world challenges that British businesses face, and gives them the smoothest possible road to run on.
We are also reducing fines for missing ZEV targets from £15,000 to £12,000 per vehicle. Where fines are levied—for the vast majority of manufacturers, they will not be—the revenue will be recycled directly back into support for the sector, because this Government invest in solutions and do not punish ambition. Let me be clear: this is not a retreat from our ambitions on EVs—quite the opposite. It is right that the threat of fines remains, as it is an inescapable fact that the domestic transport sector remains the UK’s single largest carbon emitter, accounting for 30% of emissions in 2024. That is why we are doubling down on our commitment to the electric transition. There is more than £2.3 billion available to support industry and consumers. That includes funding for new battery factories, EV supply chains and charging infrastructure, and grants for zero emission vehicles.
The public are already leading the way. March saw a 43% increase in electric vehicle sales, compared to the same month last year. February was a record month too, with EVs accounting for one in four new car sales. That surge in demand shows that we are moving in the right direction, but it also shows the importance of maintaining momentum, so we will continue working with industry to ensure demand keeps pace with supply, building a sustainable market for the long term.
The infrastructure is growing, too. There are over 75,000 public charge points now available, and more than £6 billion of private investment is lined up for UK charge point roll-out by 2030. Today, a new charge point is installed every 29 minutes. That is more than 50 every day. Families charging at home can now save up to £1,000 a year, compared with petrol drivers. An EV charged at home overnight can run for as little as 2p a mile. That is putting money in people’s pockets while relieving pressure on the planet.
We know that one size does not fit all, which is why small and micro-manufacturers will be exempt from the new measures. It is why vans will have five extra years to go green, because we recognise their unique role in the economy and in giving businesses the time that they need to adapt. It is why we are making space for hybrid vehicles in the mix, not as a compromise, but as a contribution. Hybrids offer lower emissions today without requiring overnight shifts in driving behaviour or infrastructure. They build public confidence, support choice and ensure that no one is left behind in the transition.
This is not just a transport, environmental or economic policy; it is part of this Government’s plan for change. It is a long-term effort to deliver clean, sustainable and high-quality growth, creating new jobs in battery production, EV supply chains and infrastructure, anchoring manufacturing here in the UK and supporting skilled apprenticeships in clean tech and advanced engineering. With today’s announcement, British names such as Rolls-Royce, Land Rover and Vauxhall will have the certainty they need to plan, invest and lead. We are backing British businesses to succeed at home and abroad. These reforms are fair to manufacturers, reasonable for workers and right for the climate challenge ahead.
I know some people might retreat to tired arguments about a war on motorists, but this Government are focused on real challenges, not imaginary grievances. Most of us are motorists or passengers; we are all in this together. What we need is not division, but direction, and that is what we are delivering today by listening to industry, following the data and building a strategy grounded in evidence and ambition.
When we came into government, we promised to prioritise one thing above all else: growth—for industry; for clean transport; and for people, places and pay packets. With these bold, practical reforms, backed by the Prime Minister’s plan for change, that is exactly what we are delivering. I commend this statement to the House.
I think, on his birthday, we should hear from the shadow Secretary of State.
I thank the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] That was a very helpful intervention by the hon. Gentleman; he is completely right. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for advance sight of it. The announcement by the United States of America that 25% tariffs will be imposed on UK automotive exports has understandably caused significant concern in the automotive sector. Automotive manufacturers now face tariffs of 25% on around £8 billion-worth of car and auto parts exports—a potentially devastating blow for the automotive industry. I assure the Secretary of State that we will support the Government when they do sensible things to reverse the impact on our already fragile economy. In that vein, I am glad that the Government have recommitted to negotiating a better deal with our closest ally and largest single-country trading partner, and I sincerely hope that they are successful in their negotiations.
However, on the substance of the right hon. Lady’s statement, I cannot share her enthusiasm for the rest of Labour’s plans. The reality is that today, Labour is simply trying to clear up the uncertainty that it has contributed to. When the previous Conservative Government reacted to sluggish automotive trade figures by making the pragmatic decision to delay the ban on new diesel and petrol cars from 2030 to 2035, aligning the UK with major global economies such as France, Germany, Sweden and Canada, Labour accused us of undermining the automotive industry. This morning, the Secretary of State criticised the previous Government for chopping and changing, and a consultation put out by Labour claimed that our policies caused “great harm” to the UK’s reputation as a leading nation in the EV transition by moving the goalposts. However, that is precisely what Labour did upon taking office by ideologically reversing the 2035 deadline. The plans announced over the weekend do not place the automotive sector in a better position than it was when we left office, despite some minor adjustments to the zero emission vehicle mandate.
What is more, this announcement will not undo the damage that this Labour Government have already caused. Their introduction of a £25 billion national insurance jobs tax in their first Budget was a major blow to businesses; we have warned for months that this tax will harm industries, and the automotive sector is no exception. The Secretary of State will know that US tariffs on UK car exports are set to cost the automotive sector £1.9 billion. Combined with the Government’s jobs tax—which is predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility to put 50,000 jobs at risk, and is likely to cost the automotive sector an additional £200 million—that double whammy is going to be very difficult for the sector to absorb.
Indeed, despite today’s announcements, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has stated that zero emission vehicle mandate targets remain “incredibly challenging”. In its words:
“ZEV Mandate targets are incredibly challenging, especially with a paucity of consumer demand and geopolitical upheaval. Growing EV demand to the levels needed still requires equally bold fiscal incentives…to give motorists full confidence to switch”,
but that is not what the Government are offering. Instead of the “bold changes” that the Prime Minister boasted of at the weekend, what we have is mere tinkering at the edges. Allowing producers of luxury vehicles, such as Aston Martin and McLaren, to be exempt from the 2030 ban on the sale on new internal combustion engine vehicles is welcome, as is the news that all forms of hybrid cars will be available until 2035. However, this does not go anything like far enough. The Government are still proposing to increase the level of tax liability on the value of hybrid company cars by as much as 16%, which could potentially cost individual drivers thousands of pounds each. The reduction in fines for missing EV sales targets from £15,000 to £12,000 per vehicle is nothing to be celebrated—it is like drowning at the depth of 100 metres instead of 120 metres.
Over the past few months, we have heard from numerous businesses that they simply cannot cope with the ZEV mandate. In October, the chief executive officer of Jaguar Land Rover warned that the mandate was causing severe disruption to the new car market. Not long after, Vauxhall announced the closure of its Luton factory, citing the ZEV mandate as a key factor in making that plant economically unviable. More recently, uncertainty has surrounded Plant Oxford, the home of the Mini since 1959. Last year, excluding fleet sales, the fact is that only 10% of private purchases of new vehicles were electric. Far from doing retailers a favour, the Government’s offer to fine them a small amount less for failing to sell a product that consumers demonstrably do not want is a kick in the teeth to the automotive industry.
I must therefore ask the Secretary of State the following questions. With just one in 10 private buyers purchasing an electric vehicle in 2024, why are the Government still trying to force people to buy something for which there is limited consumer demand at present? Is she really pretending that any of the measures announced today were not already in train before the tariffs were announced? Will she commit to reversing the hike in the hybrid company car tax? Does she really think that reducing the fine for each car that fails to comply with EV quotas will be enough to mitigate the impact of tariffs? Does she not believe that, rather than chasing an arbitrary timeline, now is the time for a more gradual transition to electric vehicles, one that would allow the sector to mitigate many of the challenges it is currently facing? Finally, does she recognise that the combined impact of the ZEV mandate, the jobs tax and external tariffs is a perfect storm for the automotive sector, which is facing significant and exacerbated challenges because of the choices her party has made over the past nine months?
I also extend my birthday wishes to the shadow Secretary of State. I hope he is grateful for the two birthday presents I have given him: not only a statement but a general debate, so that we can face each other across the Dispatch Box not once but twice today.
It is rich for the shadow Secretary of State to blame uncertainty in the automotive sector on this Government. I can only think that he has some sort of selective amnesia going on, because it was his Government who introduced this policy. They then delayed the phase-out date, tanking EV demand by 15% almost overnight. We had the spectacle of the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) standing up to make a speech pushing that date back out to 2035. Almost overnight, we saw those sales tank. The shadow Secretary of State should be explaining to Britain’s car manufacturers why his party faffed about so much, costing them millions and arguably leaving the sector less resilient to the global economic headwinds it now faces.
The shadow Secretary of State claims that this is a moment when we are tinkering at the edges, but nothing could be further from the truth. This is a significant moment for industry. He quotes the SMMT, and I just gently say to him that Mike Hawes, its chief executive, said this morning:
“The government has rightly listened to industry, responded quickly to global dynamics and recognised the intense pressure manufacturers are under.”
The shadow Secretary of State is also right to raise Jaguar Land Rover, which is affected by the imposition of the global tariffs that President Trump announced recently. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that Adrian Mardell, CEO at JLR said:
“We welcomed our announcement of the increased flexibilities in the zero emission vehicle mandate, and the clear commitment from Government to incentivise electric vehicle uptake and invest in infrastructure.”
The shadow Secretary of State also said that consumers do not want to buy electric vehicles. He needs to do his homework; the UK is the third largest market for electric vehicles in the world, after the US and China. It is the largest market in Europe. Last year—[Interruption.] He can chunter as much as he wants. Last year, 382,000 EVs were sold. We have had record figures in February and March this year, where we have seen demand for EVs go up by more than 40% compared with the same month in the previous year.
The shadow Secretary of State claims that we were going to make this announcement anyway. Well, he is right that we have been talking to industry for a number of months, and we were always going to have to do something to clear up the dog’s breakfast of a policy left by his Government. Clearly, the announcement last week about US tariffs on the car industry has made it all the more important that we act with pace and urgency. It is completely right that we have provided the certainty and clarity for which the sector has been calling for years.
The shadow Secretary of State claims we are not going far enough. We are investing £2 billion in an automotive transformation fund, which will ensure we can build the battery gigafactories of the future, support the EV supply chain and ensure that those high-skilled jobs of the future are available in communities across the country. Between now and 2030, we are spending £200 million supporting the roll-out of charge points, backed by £6 billion of private investment. We are spending £120 million on plug-in vehicle grants, giving people who want to purchase a new van up to £2,500 and those wanting to purchase a larger van up to £5,000.
I say to the shadow Secretary of State that this Government are acting where his Government failed. We are giving certainty to businesses, protecting jobs in a critical industry, cutting carbon and fostering a competitive market to benefit consumers.
Today’s news on support for our automotive industry in the move towards electric vehicles will be welcomed by my constituents, including those who work for the nearby Toyota plant at Burnaston. Will the Secretary of State continue this encouraging level of engagement and responsiveness to industry concerns? Will she confirm that, to make sure that the transition is a success, this Government’s wider industrial strategy will further back British auto manufacturers?
I know that the Under-Secretary responsible for the future of roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), has visited the Burnaston plant in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I understand what a critical employer it is locally. Toyota will benefit from many of the changes that we have announced today. We are allowing the sale of both full hybrids such as the Toyota Prius and plug-in hybrids after 2030, and Toyota will also benefit from the extension and expansion of the CO2 transfer caps. Moreover, if it is ever in a position in which it needs to pay fines, it will pay them at a lower level—and we would, of course, reinvest that money in supporting the sector. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she and her constituents want: we will continue to support this vital sector.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for advance sight of it. Let me also congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on his birthday, and note that he is much younger than the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
It is clear that the Government must take urgent steps to help the car industry make the switch to electric vehicles. Although increasing flexibility in the mandate is welcome, voices across the industry have made it clear that we also need to bolster demand by lowering the barriers for individuals and businesses to purchase electric vehicles. As the Secretary of State knows, the recent surge in demand to which she referred was a result of significant discounting to promote sales. It is crucial that, as well as improving the charging network, we end the inequality between public and private charging by bringing the VAT rate for public charging into line with that for home charging, at 5% rather than 20%. Not only is the present system damaging demand, but it is wrong to penalise those who have no access to private charging. Ministers should also postpone the increase in vehicle tax on electric cars, and explore the possibility of reintroducing the plug-in car grant.
As the Secretary of State made clear on the media round this morning, the spectre of Trump’s tariffs also looms large over the industry. If the Government are serious about protecting car manufacturing in the UK, the Prime Minister must continue to work with our allies in Europe and around the world on a co-ordinated response. The only way to tackle Trump is to negotiate from a position of strength, and to show that the UK is not alone and will not be bullied.
May I ask the Secretary of State three questions? First, what conversations has she had with the Chancellor about lowering the public charging rate to 5%, and what other measures are the Government considering to strengthen EV demand? Secondly, can she confirm that the measures announced today are a response to the ZEV consultation that ended in February, and tell us what, if any, additional measures are being considered in respect of the tariffs that have since been announced? Thirdly, will the Government start negotiations with the EU about the formation of a UK-EU custom union, to cut red tape not only for vehicle manufacturers but for all UK industries?
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government keep the VAT variation between public and private charging under review. The 20% standard rate to which public charge points are subject applies to most goods and services, with very few exemptions. We are trying to give people low-cost and affordable options for public charging by investing £380 million to roll out overnight chargers, which are cheaper and will be installed to help those without a driveway. Today, Brighton & Hove City Council confirmed that it had signed the contracts to deliver 6,000 of those chargers, and in February Midlands Connect announced that it was rolling out more than 16,000 across the midlands, helping drivers to charge their vehicles for less.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether today’s announcement was a response to the consultation that we launched at the end of December, which closed in February. It is indeed a Government response to that consultation. As for the discussions that we will have with European colleagues, we will continue those discussions. Although the hon. Gentleman tried to tempt me into giving him a commitment to rejoin an EU customs union, I am afraid that that is not a commitment I can give.
On behalf of those of my constituents who work at JLR Halewood, I thank my right hon. Friend for the stability and confidence that she has given to our automotive industry; it will be enormously reassuring to them. The last Government confirmed through Mark Harper, the then Secretary of State, that it was already cheaper for drivers to switch to electric vehicles—he did so from the Dispatch Box this time last year. For those of us who are able to plug in at home, it is cheaper by up to £1,000 per family, as she said in her statement. May I encourage her to work with the Energy Secretary on reducing the cost of electricity more widely to benefit those of us who cannot plug in at home, and to improve consumer demand, which is so crucial to supporting our manufacturers?
I can assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to work across Government with colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and in the Department for Business and Trade, in order to make the take-up of EVs as affordable as possible for individuals who want to make the transition. He is entirely right to point out that, compared with a petrol car, drivers can save up to £1,000 a year if they mostly charge at home, and that an EV can be run for as little as 2p per mile if charged at home. Half of all used electric cars are now sold for under £20,000, and there are 29 brand-new electric cars on the market for under £30,000.
I am proud to have Ford’s UK technical headquarters, which employs thousands of fantastic workers in high-quality R&D jobs, at Dunton in my Basildon and Billericay constituency, and elements of what the Secretary of State has announced today will certainly be very welcome. On the flip side, local businesses that rely on the Ford HQ—and, in fact, the entire automotive sector—saw a £200 million-a-year increase in national insurance kick in yesterday. Today, small businesses in my constituency, many of which work in London, face charges on the Blackwall tunnel for the first time ever and charges on the Silvertown tunnel, which means that many will face charges of £35 a day, just to operate in London. Will the Secretary of State raise those issues with her colleague the Mayor of London and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Could she also tell us how long the plug-in van grant will be extended? We know it will be there in 2026, but for how much longer?
I was struggling to decipher a question in the speech that was forthcoming from the other side of the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on the opening of the Silvertown tunnel in east London. I suspect that a number of his constituents—regardless of whether they are driving for work or to try to reach friends and family—have been stuck in absolutely atrocious traffic north and south of the Blackwall tunnel. For the first time ever, London’s double-deck red buses will now be able to cross the Thames east of Tower Bridge. I hope that he might join me in congratulating both the Mayor of London and Transport for London on getting a new river crossing open, which is much needed.
The news over the weekend that Jaguar Land Rover was pausing shipments to the United States was worrying for many of my constituents. JLR employs 9,000 people at its factory in nearby Solihull, and supports thousands of jobs in the wider supply chain. After the flip-flopping of previous Governments, this Government have acted decisively to give British car makers certainty and support in the transition to electric vehicles. Can the Minister confirm whether she is planning to build flexibilities into the mandate targets?
That is precisely what we have done. I reassure my hon. Friend that I have been in touch directly with Jaguar Land Rover over the last couple of days, and I am pleased that we have been able to provide the company and other car manufacturers with certainty at this very difficult time. We have been able to do that this week, and I hope it will provide some comfort to her constituents who are employed at that local facility.
As someone who has never bought a new motor vehicle, apart from a motorcycle, may I probe the Secretary of State further on what she said about the second-hand EV market? For families that will never be able to afford a new vehicle, does she anticipate a time when the second-hand EV market will be comparable in price to the second-hand market for conventional vehicles?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He is right to mention the second-hand market: 80% of car purchases in any given year are in the second-hand market. I am told that, at the moment, some of the most popular products on AutoTrader are second-hand EVs. They are selling very well, and he is completely right that these vehicles need to be affordable to everyone and an option for everyone, so I am made hopeful by the green shoots we are seeing in the second-hand market at the moment.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the leadership she is showing in delivering our manifesto commitments in partnership with industry. The contrast is clear with the Opposition, who are bringing along uncosted ideas for grants, subsidies and tax cuts. I welcome the reaffirmation of the plan to roll out EV charging, but is she sure that that will be able to meet EV demand, and are there any plans for a battery health check to help reassure people buying used vehicles in the second-hand market?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are working with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on the battery health check issue that he raises. I assure him that we are working closely with the private sector on the roll-out of charge point infrastructure. As I said in my statement, a new EV charger is currently installed every 29 minutes, or at a rate of 50 a day. Only a couple of weeks ago, I visited the new InstaVolt charging super-hub in Winchester, which, when one sees it, really is a glimpse into the future. It is imperative that the Government continue to work with the private sector to make sure that the charging infrastructure is there for everyone in the places where they need it when they need it.
UK businesses in the automotive supply chain, both across the country and in my constituency, need more support. Indeed, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders agrees that a package of measures is needed for the supply chain. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to supporting the needs of the supply chain specifically? Given that she is not inclined to be tempted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) imploring her that we should join an EU-UK customs union, what assessment has the Department made of the cost of not doing so?
The hon. Member will be aware that the Cabinet Office leads on the EU reset negotiations, so she might most appropriately put that question to my colleagues in the Cabinet Office. On her wider question about support for the EV supply chain, we have announced the automotive transformation fund to a value of £2 billion, part of which is specifically for supporting the EV supply chain.
Many of my North Durham constituents proudly work at Nissan in the constituency of my neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). Nissan Sunderland’s 6,000 staff make excellent cars, including hybrid and electric vehicles. My right hon. Friend deserves credit for putting together at pace a package that has been welcomed by industry, but she is right to suggest that this is only one piece of the puzzle. What more will she and Ministers be doing to support the sector in the coming months?
We will continue to roll out the electric charging infrastructure, which is really important to give consumers confidence. The time to switch to EVs is now. We will continue to have the plug-in vehicle grants for individuals who are thinking about purchasing a new van. We will also continue to keep under review what else can be done to stimulate demand and make sure we maintain the momentum that we are seeing in the market in the first few months of this year.
I welcome what I think the Secretary of State has announced about smaller luxury vehicle manufacturers such as Aston Martin, which is based in my constituency. I say “I think” because her statement says that
“small…manufacturers will be exempt from these new measures.”
I would be grateful if she clarified whether that refers to the existing mandate of measures, because she knows that that is what the smaller manufacturers in question have been lobbying to be exempted from, rather than the loosening she has announced today. If she can confirm that, and she is relying on an argument that we can treat smaller luxury manufacturers differently from everyone else, would she commend that argument to her colleague the Trade Secretary in the discussions on tariffs with the United States?
I can confirm to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that smaller and micro manufacturers are exempt from the ZEV mandate, but they will need to comply with the 2035 complete phase-out date, as per all other manufacturers.
I hope the rest of the shadow Secretary of State’s birthday is rather better than the last half hour; I do not think his contribution today will age very well at all. The measures the Government are proposing are a sensible compromise. The industry did need certainty. There were real concerns about that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and other Derbyshire MPs heard on a recent visit to Toyota, so the measures absolutely strike the right balance. What can the Secretary of State say to my constituents who live in either council flats or terraced properties, which makes home charging more difficult, about what more we can do to ensure they are not faced with a huge price disparity in comparison to those who are able to have charging infrastructure at home?
We issued guidance to local authorities before Christmas on cross-pavement solutions, and we are offering a grant of up to £350 for households with on-street parking. I hope those two things together will offer some comfort to my hon. Friend’s constituents who are in the situations he describes.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Pace is needed, understandably, but I do have some concerns in that due process needs to be followed with the devolved Administrations. Can she assure the House that sufficient time is being allowed for the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, to be fully involved and engaged in a consultation on policy development, and the Scottish Parliament for any legislative changes that may be required? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the potential for those changes to impact negatively on carbon emissions in the UK and Scotland, and our respective Governments’ ability to meet statutory climate change targets? Will she publish any such assessments?
I would like to put on record my thanks to the Scottish Government for their assistance in working at pace over the past couple of days. I committed to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Government to work closely with them and that is exactly what I have done. With regard to carbon assessments, we have conducted a carbon assessment. I can assure him that today’s proposed changes make a negligible change to the carbon emissions that were predicted to be saved as a result of the ZEV mandate.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, given the uncertainty and turmoil caused by US tariffs on British-made vehicles. Will she outline how she is responding to major employers such as Jaguar Land Rover, to ensure they can remain competitive and safeguard jobs in our local communities, as shared by Members from across the House?
As I may have said to other colleagues, JLR will stand to benefit from the flexibilities we have announced today: the increased borrowing flexibility; the extension and the expansion of the carbon dioxide transfer cap; and the changes we talked about on the way we measure CO2 emissions from plug-in hybrids, which will make it easier for them to use the CO2 transfer flexibility. I think all those things we have announced today will be welcomed by JLR and, hopefully, by her constituents employed at the factory.
If the Government’s top priority really is growth, a policy that sets artificial targets to ban products that people want to buy, which are not subsidised, to force them to buy cheap Chinese products that they do not really want, which are subsidised, does not sound like a policy for growth. Incidentally, they also suffer from very high insurance costs and high depreciation costs, and may lead to the closing down of capacity to produce in the United Kingdom the products that people do want to buy. The Secretary of State may have priorities, but growth is not one of them.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speak to his constituents, who are buying EVs in numbers. There has been a 40% increase—
The hon. Gentleman is telling me that he has one, which is fantastic—he is clearly leading the way. This is a massive industrial opportunity for this country and we need to give certainty and confidence to both businesses and consumers, which is precisely what this Government are doing. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to become the poster boy for the EV industry, I would be very happy to have a conversation with him about that.
Workers at BMW Cowley have made clear to me their determination to play their part in a jobs-rich transition to net zero. Can my right hon. Friend explain how these changes will benefit BMW Cowley specifically, given its significance for my constituency and for UK manufacturing as a whole?
We are confirming today that we will maintain the existing CO2 scores for plug-in hybrids instead of using the revised scores that are now being used in the EU. That will be of particular benefit to BMW and the Mini Cowley plant.
The car industry will be hardest hit by Trump’s tariffs, as my constituency knows better than most; our single largest employer, McLaren, sells 42% of its product to the US. Will the Minister consider retaliatory tariffs, particularly against Tesla, to protect British jobs and show that tariffs have consequences?
McLaren will, of course, benefit from the exemption we have announced today for small and micro manufacturers. We are considering our position regarding the imposition of tariffs, and the Business Secretary is consulting industry on future steps. I would say, however, that an escalating trade war is not in anyone’s best interests.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Harlow is a new town, and it has a number of properties that do not have off-street parking. I ask her to drill down on the guidance she has given to local councillors on what they can do to provide more off-street charging facilities.
My hon. Friend is totally right. This is a critical issue. The guidance that we published before Christmas is vital, as is the grant we are giving to households.
It is not just the absurdity of fining firms for making the wrong cars, and insisting that is good for growth; it is that the national grid and local distribution networks do not have the capacity to cope with growing demand now, let alone if and when cars and central heating are electrified, as the Government promise, and all those data centres are built. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the connections queue stands at 756 GW and that only 0.54 GW was delivered in the past month, while the queue grew by 21.8 GW?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in regular contact with the Energy Secretary to ensure that we have the grid connections and capability for the EV charging infrastructure that we need.
Jaguar Land Rover and its wider supply chain employ huge numbers of people in my constituency, so I am very glad to see the Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary backing our automotive industry so strongly today. This commitment makes clear our strong climate commitments, but also our support for the transition in the industry. Will the Secretary of State say more about how we will support demand-side change to get EV charge points across towns such as Oldbury and West Brom in my constituency?
Of course, the Prime Minister is at JLR in the midlands today. We are spending £200 million of public money to support the roll-out of EV infrastructure, which sits alongside £6 billion of private investment to ensure that charge points are where people need them, when they need them.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and answers. Over time, UK Governments have committed hundreds of millions of pounds to perfecting electric vehicle charging infrastructure in England, but back home in Northern Ireland, the ratio of charging points to electric vehicles is not sufficient. It is nowhere near the level on the mainland, and we are a much more rural community. Will the Minister ensure that through the Barnett consequentials, additional attention is paid to giving the devolved institutions the funding necessary to make sure that electric vehicle charging infrastructure can meet the demand of the electric vehicles on the road?
The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the availability of charge point infrastructure in all places in the UK. It is a matter I look forward to discussing with my counterparts in Northern Ireland when I next have the opportunity to meet them.
I thank the Secretary of State on behalf of my constituents, many of whom work for Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin. This update is very welcome news, especially the changes for small and micro manufacturers and for hybrid, too, particularly in the light of Washington’s tariffs last week. Electrification and hydrogen are the future. I look at China with its market of 12 million electric cars—38% to 50% of its vehicles are now electric. Can I urge the Government to look once again at support for manufacturers, which are subsidised in the sale of electric vehicles?
The automotive transformation fund that I mentioned earlier is a sizeable investment that the Government committed to at the last Budget. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s ideas about how it might best be utilised.
One of the major issues holding back wider EV ownership is the complete lack of EV charging infrastructure in towns such as Huntingdon and St Ives in my constituency. What assessment have the Government made of the grid capacity required to facilitate a significant uplift in EV charging infrastructure, and how much will the upgrade cost? At what point will current grid capacity be unable to provide adequate charging? Separately, what is the plan for a significant increase in EV battery disposal and to address the prohibitive cost of new batteries for older electric vehicles?
Those are matters that the Department constantly reviews. Regarding grid capacity, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy).
To make sure the transition is a success, can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government’s wider industrial strategy will back British auto manufacturers and British supply chains further and ensure that this is a place-based growth agenda for all our communities?
I can confirm that for my hon. Friend, and we will be publishing the industrial strategy soon. This is about creating the jobs of the future in high-skilled industries and the right conditions for growth, and that is completely what the Government are committed to doing.
The Transport Secretary omitted to mention that UK car production last year was at its lowest level for 70 years, aside from the pandemic; that UK car production this year is down a further 11%; and that total registrations of electric and hybrid cars this year are down another 2%. Will the Minister agree that the best thing to do to ensure growth and increase production is to scrap all these ridiculous zero emission targets forthwith?
No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The number of new cars sold in the UK last year was 1.9 million, and the market grew by 2.6% on 2023. The number of new EVs sold last year was 382,000, which was nearly 20% of the market and represents a 21% growth on 2023.
I commend the Secretary of State for standing up for cheaper and cleaner British cars in the face of the global chaos being forced on our economy—particularly in the light of the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal, which wrecked Britain’s car industry and lost this country a decade of golden British manufacturing. My constituents in Bournemouth East are crying out for charging infrastructure. The Secretary of State said that nobody would be left behind. Can she outline how she will invest in charging infrastructure to make sure that everybody who wants to can be part of the electric vehicle revolution?
This is a partnership between public investment and the private sector. I assure my hon. Friend that we will be paying attention to Bournemouth, as we will to all other parts of the country.
I rise to speak as a very satisfied second-hand EV driver. I visited Ohme’s head office last month to learn about how home charging of EVs can revolutionise the energy market and help EVs become a way of managing our grid, as well as a way to drive. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to accelerating work on flexible generation of storage to help to drive demand for businesses and homes and to make Britain the starting place of this revolution?
Officials in my Department are looking at this issue very closely. I would be interested in learning more from the hon. Member about the visit she made to the business in her constituency.
South Norfolk is proudly home to Lotus Cars. This morning, I had a conversation with the management team, who welcomed the announcement. In our long-term plan for the car manufacturing industry, what action will the Government be taking for UK-based original equipment manufacturers to ensure that we have a good plan for the EV transition so that we are competitive in future markets?
Everything that the Government are doing, and everything in the announcement, is about ensuring that our British businesses are competitive. I am pleased to hear that Lotus is pleased with what we have announced. I understand that other British brands such as McLaren, Bentley and Caterham are also pleased with the announcement, which is all about the Government’s commitment to driving growth and opportunity.
I am concerned about public health. We all know that diesel and petrol hybrids are not zero emission, we know that the 2035 extension is not about tariffs—it applies only to UK sales—and we know that the move was already on the cards since Labour ripped clean air out of its manifesto completely. Has the Secretary of State assessed the impact of the announcement on the achievement of clean air target commitments? Is this the last we will hear of any clean air Act from this Government?
I assure the hon. Lady that an analysis of environmental impacts has been done, and that relates to both carbon emissions and air pollution.
The Secretary of State is correct to say that demand for electric vehicles is strong, but in my rural Norfolk constituency the lack of charging infrastructure over the last 14 years has left many not wanting to make that switch. Will she confirm that rural areas such as Norfolk will be prioritised for such charging infrastructure in the future?
We increased the installation of EV charging infrastructure in rural areas by 45% in the last year. I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will start to see the fruits of that soon.
Autonomous vehicles are the next step into the future. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with UK manufacturers to ensure that they can take full advantage of the next revolution in how we use cars?
We regularly talk to manufacturers and other organisations that are interested in the move to connected and autonomous vehicles, and we are open to exploring how that might work in the UK. We need to do it in a safe way, but I am interested in how we might expedite trials in the UK. That is a subject that we are working on at the moment.
I do not know which businesses the shadow Secretary of State or indeed the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) have been listening to, but I have spoken to businesses including Honda, whose European headquarters are just outside my constituency, and they have said that they are committed to decarbonisation but had concerns about the inflexibility of the scheme that we inherited from the Conservative party. Does the Secretary of State agree that the statement shows that Labour is the party on the side of the British car industry, and of the industry across the world?
My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are backing British business and supporting our domestic car manufacturing industry. I am pleased to hear that the companies based in his constituency will be welcoming the announcement.
Previous Labour and Conservative Governments did little when Welsh livelihoods were swept away by global market forces at places such as the Ford plant in Bridgend and the steelworks in Port Talbot. Wales’s car sector is facing 25% tariffs thanks to President Trump. That threatens an industry that employs 30,000 people. The Welsh Automotive Forum has said that the Government’s commitments are not enough; it is calling for direct support. Recycled fines are hardly direct support. Are the Government prepared to step up and provide that?
We have a £2 billion automotive transformation fund, and we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in other forms of support. I work closely with the Welsh Government on these issues. We will leave no stone unturned in our attempts to protect the car manufacturing industry and preserve high-skilled jobs in communities in Wales and across the rest of the country.
My constituency needs charging infrastructure, so I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s statement and her answers to colleagues across the House. In Leeds South West and Morley, many residents live in terraced houses without driveways. Some of them have contacted me asking what they need to do to get the charging infrastructure required for an electric vehicle. I promised one such resident that I would raise that with the Secretary of State. What update can she give on our commitment to charging infrastructure across the UK?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on fulfilling his promise to his constituent. We are working closely with local authorities through the local electric vehicle infrastructure—LEVI—scheme to roll out charging infrastructure, and we have issued the guidance that I mentioned earlier to local authorities on improving cross-pavement charging solutions. There are also grants available for householders who do not have a driveway but who wish to install a charge point.
Saving the best till last, I call Sammy Wilson.
The statement today is further evidence of the economically damaging and market-distorting impact of the unrealistic net zero policies. The only reason that the Minister is having to impose fines on producers is that demand does not meet the targets that she has set for the production of electric vehicles. Does she not accept that the response from producers will be either to cut back production, reducing jobs, or to reduce the price of EVs, reducing profits and investment in the UK? Are car workers going to be the next group of workers to be sacrificed on the altar of net zero?
It is right that we retain the threat of fines, but I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not believe that any manufacturers will have to pay fines in the first year of the operation of the ZEV mandate. The trading window for credits is yet to close—it will close later this year—but our initial analysis suggests that no manufacturers will have to pay fines this year.
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberGrowth is this Government’s No. 1 mission, and transport connectivity is key. We are getting on with delivering this Government’s plan for change by delivering the basics of a better transport system: cutting journey times and improving connections. That means improving the everyday journeys that drive growth and improve lives.
I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Can she update me on the conversations the Department has had with Gateshead council about the state of Gateshead flyover? This 400-tonne barrier to jobs running through the middle of our town is holding back businesses and growth, and stopping us achieving our full potential.
I recall meeting my hon. Friend just before Christmas, and I appreciate how critical the resolution of this issue is to his constituents and the wider area. My officials, along with colleagues from the North East combined authority, have been meeting regularly with Gateshead council to build the case for the regeneration of the area, facilitated by the planned demolition of the flyover. I know that the Minister for Future of Roads visited Gateshead in January to see the issues for herself.
Scotland’s ferry network to the islands is an essential transport system. Island communities have at times been effectively cut off due to ferry chaos, disruptive cancellations and expensive repairs. The SNP has decided to inflict a 10% fare hike and sent a contract for seven new ferries to Poland. The Scottish Government are depriving Scotland’s iconic shipbuilding industry of much-needed growth and jobs. Can the UK Government assist the Scottish Government with fundamental reform of how we procure and run ferries in our country?
As all of us know, Scotland has a world-renowned shipbuilding industry, so it saddens me that, under the SNP, Scotland’s ferries are being built elsewhere. I am aware that Scottish colleagues want to see reforms to how ferries are run and procured. In the meantime, I urge the Scottish Government to reconsider sending vital jobs and investment abroad.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on improving everyday transport for UK residents, and her comments on Scottish ferries. Does she agree that my constituency, on the Isle of Wight, should not be left behind in the Government’s transport plans? Will she agree to intervene and look at all options in order to regulate private equity—currently, we are entirely reliant on it for our connectivity with the UK mainland, which is harming our local economy—and to look at the potential of empowering any future combined mayoral authority with some regulatory power over cross-Solent transport?
I had a useful meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) about this issue a couple of weeks ago, and I am afraid he slightly beat the hon. Gentleman to it in suggesting that we should consider what powers might be available through any future mayoral combined authority. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we are speaking to stakeholders across the island, including the ferry operators, to understand these issues in more depth and how we might make improvements going forward. That engagement will continue, and my hon. Friend the Maritime Minister will have a meeting with all stakeholders in due course.
Regional growth is really important for the wider economy. There has been a huge focus on London airports—Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton—in recent weeks. What efforts is the Transport Secretary making to address regional growth and regional airport investment?
I meet my counterpart in the Scottish Government regularly, and I will discuss this issue with her. The potential expansion of Heathrow is very important for regional connectivity to our other airports. With regard to Scottish airports, if there are specific issues that the hon. Gentleman would like to bring to my attention, I would be very happy to have that conversation with him.
We are starting to see train performance stabilise following a decade of decline, and cancellations are no longer rising. We have ended the national industrial dispute, bringing passenger confidence back with a 7% increase in passenger journeys. Furthermore, we have made station-specific performance information available for the first time, as a visible sign that we are determined to improve standards.
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. In rural towns, rail links are vital to keep our communities connected, but many stations, such as Shepley station in my constituency, have poor accessibility for disabled and elderly travellers. Can she offer an update on the Department’s plans to upgrade accessibility at Shepley station through the Access for All programme and through its consideration of the business case submitted by Kirklees council to ensure that all residents can use it?
I can assure my hon. Friend that accessibility is at the heart of our plans for rail reform. Although I am not yet able to comment on next steps for Access for All projects at specific stations, such as Shepley in her constituency, I assure her that we are committed to improving the accessibility of the railway. It will be a priority for Great British Railways.
The Croydon area remodelling scheme would upgrade East Croydon and Norwood Junction stations in my constituency and improve services across the Brighton main line and most of the south-east. However, after the previous Government withdrew funding for this vital infrastructure project, passengers continue to suffer delays, and opportunities for growth across the south-east remain untapped. Given the Government’s mission for growth and increased demand for rail services to Gatwick airport, will the Secretary of State look again at the Croydon area remodelling scheme and meet me to discuss how investing in Croydon’s transport infra- structure could unlock growth across the south-east?
I am sorry to say that the previous Government recklessly over-promised on rail infrastructure projects, misleading passengers who have struggled for far too long to access the services that they deserve. In fact, I would go as far as saying that Conservative Ministers travelled around the country promising rail users the moon on a stick, paid for with fantasy money. I will gladly meet my hon. Friend to discuss the Croydon area modelling scheme.
The Secretary of State will know about the planned engineering works between Didcot Parkway and Swindon and in the Paddington area, which will cause significant disruption between London and Bristol and in south Wales this Sunday and next Sunday. Disruption on major routes causes massive chaos on the rural routes that are accessed via Bristol and further to the south-west. Then there is the closure of the M4 between Bath and Bristol, which means that there will be no buses between Swindon and Bristol on those days. The alerts about longer and busier journeys and train cancellations and delays advise us to travel the day before or the day after. That does not seem adequate. Will the Secretary of State please pull the rail, bus and road bodies together to avoid clashes such as this, particularly when we face six years of further disruption as a result of High Speed 2 works, which will not benefit the south-west in the slightest?
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Having readjusted my own travel plans for this weekend, I feel her pain somewhat. This Government recognise that Sunday performance in particular, irrespective of planned engineering works, has not been good enough on Great Western Railway, and we are working actively to address that. GWR is continuing to make tactical interventions to improve the resilience of timetabling, diagramming and rostering. I will raise her wider point about join-up between modes with officials in my Department.
Given that one in five trains operated by Southern Rail arriving at Chichester station is late, and that there is no fast service connecting Chichester to London, what steps are being taken directly to improve train punctuality and reliability for my constituents, especially considering that an annual ticket is nearly £8,000?
The hon. Lady is right to demand excellent train services for her constituents, and that is what this Government are determined to deliver. We are working with the train operating companies on plans to improve timetabling and staff availability and rostering. I am happy to take away the specific issues that she has raised in relation to Chichester and provide her with more detail on the intervention plan on that line.
We are told that nationalisation is the answer to improving passenger rail performance. If that is the case, surely it would make sense to start by nationalising the worst performing operators. CrossCountry comes last out of all train operating companies for passenger satisfaction and it is not complying with its obligations. The Secretary of State could call in that contract, so why is it not the first operator to be nationalised under GBR?
We made a commitment to bring the train operating companies back into public ownership without any cost to the taxpayer. The appropriate point at which to bring the train operating companies back into public ownership is when the franchises expire. If there is terrible performance, we can seek to break a contract earlier. I am pleased that there are some improvements at CrossCountry. We are seeing improvements from the train operating companies that have been brought into public ownership. In particular, for TransPennine and LNER there is a really positive story to tell on passenger journeys and revenue growth.
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but she ducks the point that if she had the political will she could bring CrossCountry in-house now. It is not the first operator to come under GBR or even close to it. Under current plans, the Government will not get around to tackling CrossCountry until 2031. In the meantime, highly effective private operators with some of the highest levels of customer satisfaction such as c2c and Greater Anglia will be subjected to dislocating nationalisation this year. Why are the Government forcing nationalisation in areas where current services are liked, and sitting on their hands where people are crying out for improvements?
I am not sure the hon. Gentleman listened to my previous answer. I said clearly that we are bringing the train operating companies into public ownership in a way that offers good value for money for the British taxpayer. The number of cancellations on CrossCountry has reduced markedly since the start of this year, and although we recognise that there is more to do, CrossCountry is on a good improvement trajectory.
We are committed to increasing railway capacity. For instance, the delivery of HS2 phase 1 will more than double long-distance seated capacity between London and the west midlands, and many projects that will increase capacity are being funded through the rail network enhancements pipeline, particularly in the north and midlands.
I pay tribute to Brian Dunsby OBE, who was a pillar of the Harrogate business community. He tirelessly campaigned to improve our railways, including getting a direct service from London to Harrogate. One of the issues that we spoke about before he sadly passed away was how the Leeds to York line via Harrogate becomes a single track at Knaresborough, which has implications for running higher levels of services and for delays, as once one service is delayed, the entire day can quickly fall. I am launching a campaign for the dualling of the line between Knaresborough and York so that the railways serving our communities are fit for purpose. Will the Secretary of State join me in that? Will she offer any advice on how we can go about securing that investment?
May I express my condolences on the loss of the rail campaigner and constituent the hon. Member mentioned? I am aware that Network Rail is looking at both electrification schemes and potentially longer platform schemes for stations that serve his constituency, but I recognise that he is talking about dual tracking. May I suggest that he seeks a meeting with the Rail Minister in the other place to discuss that in more detail?
My constituents in Uttoxeter have no trains on a Sunday until 3 pm due to long-standing Network Rail staffing issues in signal boxes. With Uttoxeter’s growing population, it is unacceptable that residents are left without transport for much of the day on Sunday. I thank the Rail Minister for his engagement with me so far, but will the Secretary of State say more about how the Government are improving the reliability of train services?
I am clear that we must have a seven-day railway where trains are as likely to turn up on a Sunday afternoon as they are on a Monday morning. We are working with train operating companies across the country, including those that serve my hon. Friend’s constituents in Uttoxeter, and I am happy to provide more information to him in writing about the specific action we are taking in his constituency.
In 2017, South Western Railway ordered 90 new Arterio trains to increase capacity on its rail network. They were meant to enter service in 2019. However, six years later, only five are in service—presumably not counting the empty one that sailed by a teeming and seething platform at Wimbledon this morning. With SWR set to be in Government hands in two months, what steps will be taken to ensure that those trains are finally brought into service?
I know that the Rail Minister is seized of this issue. He has spoken to me about it, and I understand that it relates to issues with lighting on platforms, what can be seen from the CCTV cameras and the role of the guard. We are across the detail, and it is important that those issues are resolved before the trains are brought into public ownership on 25 May.
I put on record my thanks to all those involved in responding to the major incidents that we have seen unfold on land and at sea in recent weeks. The collisions of vessels in the North sea and the fire at the electricity substation serving Heathrow have caused disruption and distress. I am pleased that recovery has been swift, and I am clear that no stone should be left unturned either in identifying the causes of the incidents or in learning lessons for the future.
I am pleased with the work taking place across my Department to keep Britain moving. On Monday, we announced what councils need to do to unlock their full share of almost £1.6 billion of investment to repair our broken roads. For the first time, we are asking every council in England to tell us how many potholes it has fixed to unlock its allocation. As we strive to make our trains more reliable, I welcome the end of the Avanti West Coast dispute. Transport continues to drive the Government’s plan for change, unlocking jobs, growth and opportunities for all.
Last weekend in my constituency, our Shrewsbury Moves festival celebrated progress towards our 10-year plan to implement more inclusive and integrated public transport across our beautiful medieval town. What additional transport is the Department making available to historic and economically thriving towns such as Shrewsbury in order to combat congestion by enabling more integrated public transport?
The Aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), tells me that he was at Shrewsbury Moves on his wedding anniversary and had a very good time.
The integrated national transport strategy will set the long-term vision for transport in England. Different places face different challenges, so we want to enable local leaders to deliver the right transport for communities. That will always include good public transport, as well as schemes that balance the needs of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians on the roads.
When the Government handed the ASLEF trade union an eye-watering £9 billion pay agreement in the summer, they promised that it would
“protect passengers from further national strikes”.
Yet recently the Secretary of State said on national television that
“there will be occasions on which strikes will be necessary”.
Will she provide the House with an example of a necessary strike?
The hon. Gentleman will know that I have extensive experience from my time in London, where we did take strikes when safety was at risk. That is one direct example that I can give him.
The Secretary of State will be aware that in response to her Department’s recent rail consultation, the trade unions welcomed her plan and said that a just transition to nationalisation would mean the levelling up of pay and conditions for rail workers. The cost of that to the taxpayer could be considerable. Would she consider a strike over harmonising pay and conditions to be a necessary strike?
Let us be clear: the cost of those national rolling strikes over two years was £850 million in lost revenue. I am sorry, but I am not going to take any lessons from the shadow Secretary of State on industrial relations on the railway.
Yesterday, the Chancellor spoke about the importance of getting individuals back to work in order to grow our economy, but the uneven coverage, unreliability and inaccessibility of our transport network are key barriers that prevent many from doing so. Furthermore, the Chancellor maintained the decision she took in October to cut the Department for Transport’s budget. Does the Secretary of State believe that cutting the transport budget is a good way of increasing economic growth?
I know that the Chancellor and her colleagues in the Treasury understand completely the importance of investing in our transport infrastructure to unlock the jobs, homes and opportunities of the future.
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. As I said in my letter to Ken Skates in January, we do
“recognise that railways in Wales have seen low levels of enhancement spending in recent years,”
and we will seek to address that.
When the Roads Minister came to Norfolk recently, she was reported to have cast doubt over the approval of the A10 West Winch housing access road, which is essential to unlock thousands of homes and economic growth. Without the road, the homes will not be built. Given the Government’s commitment to house building, will the Transport Secretary reaffirm her support for this long-standing road scheme?
The Secretary of State will recognise that it is very difficult for private landowners and local authorities along the line of High Speed 2 to plan future development when they do not know what will happen to land that is necessary for construction but is not needed for the long-term operation of the line. A land disposal strategy for HS2 is overdue. Can she produce one urgently? When she does so, will she seek opportunities to benefit communities like those I represent, which are suffering the disruption of the line but will not benefit from its operation?
This is a matter that I am seeking to expedite, as I recognise the uncertainty it causes for landowners and communities along the line. I will take the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s wider point into consideration.
I do agree that Government investment in new bi-mode trains and electrification on east midlands railways will result in lower energy costs, a reduction in noise emissions and a significant improvement to the railways.
As the Secretary of State will be aware, the Government moved the money earmarked for Aldridge train station on the whim of the Labour Mayor, sadly making Aldridge residents feel that they are no longer cared about. As the Government say that they are minded to grant open access from Wrexham to Euston, will they work with me to demonstrate to the people of Aldridge that they do actually care by working to deliver a train station by 2027, as planned and budgeted for by the Conservatives?
I find it rather strange that every month I come to the Dispatch Box and answer the same question from the right hon. Lady, given that she was Rail Minister for a number of years. I am very happy to discuss the importance of Aldridge station with the Mayor of the West Midlands and to update the right hon. Lady further.
My constituency has a very successful passenger branch line, but there also used to be a freight line. There is a tiny piece of track that, quite inexpensively, could be reopened to carry tin and lithium out through the docks. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the possibility of doing that?
This Government are committed to moving more freight from road to rail, which is the right thing to do for our environment and our economy. I would be happy to have that meeting with my hon. Friend.
Derby station has recently been revealed as the seventh worst for delays in the UK. When people cannot get to work on time, it is not just a pain for them; it also impacts productivity and holds back our local economies. Will the Secretary of State outline the steps she is taking to tackle delayed trains in Derby and the east midlands, so that the transport system supports economic growth rather than holding it back?
We are working closely with East Midlands Railway and CrossCountry to resolve cancellations and delays, whether related to train fleets, staffing or infrastructure matters.
The reduction in funding for our waterways by 5% year on year from 2027 will have a detrimental impact on the operations of the Dudley Canal and Caverns Trust. Will my right hon. Friend commit to a review of the funding of our waterways and reinstate that support?
I am happy to look into that issue for my hon. Friend and provide her with a written update.
I recently met the managing director of Morebus again to call for new services to Hengistbury Head, reinstated services to Throop and better services, such as an improved 33 route and routes to the Royal Bournemouth hospital and the airport. Does the Minister agree that better buses are good for our communities and our economy, and that there is a lot of growth to unlock in Bournemouth and the south-west with better buses?
(2 months 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.
(2 months 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]
(2 months, 4 weeks 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]
(3 months 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]