London Luton Airport Development Consent Order: Decision Extension

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

This statement confirms that it has been necessary to extend the deadline for the decision for the London Luton airport development consent order under the Planning Act 2008.

Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, a decision must be made within 3 months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless the power under section 107(3) to extend the deadline is exercised and a statement is made to Parliament announcing the new deadline.

The examining authority’s report on the London Luton airport development consent order application was received on 10 May 2024. The current deadline for a decision is 4 October 2024, having been extended from 10 August 2024 to 4 October 2024 by way of written ministerial statement dated 24 May 2024 available at https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-05-24/hcws506

The deadline for the decision is to be further extended to 3 January 2025—an extension of 3 months. The reason for the extension is to enable the applicant further time to provide requested information, and for that information to be considered, including by interested parties, before the final determination of the application.

The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to give development consent for the above application.

[HCWS91]

Bus Retrofit Performance Report

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

Today, I am providing an update regarding the retrofitting of buses with selective catalytic reduction—SCR—technology to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides.

Through a series of trials between 2013 and 2015, the previous Government explored the potential of reducing emissions or improving fuel economy in older buses and other large vehicles through a range of retrofit technologies. Retrofitting SCR technology was found to be the most effective in reducing the levels of NOx emitted from older buses. Allowing for some variation based on the Euro standard of the retrofitted bus, the reduction of NOx using SCR technology in trials averaged around 90%.

The clean vehicle retrofit accreditation scheme—CVRAS—was launched in 2017 to accredit retrofit technologies that could reduce NOx emissions from buses to close to Euro VI levels. Between 2017 and 2019, £64 million was allocated to the clean bus technology fund for bus upgrades and retrofits. A further £31 million was provided to local authorities in the Government’s NO₂ programme. Approximately 9,000 buses in England have been retrofitted with CVRAS-accredited SCR technology.

In 2021, the Government were made aware of new evidence from Scotland suggesting that real-world emission reductions from retrofitted buses were lower than expected. In 2022, a roadside monitoring campaign was commissioned to measure NOx emissions from retrofitted buses in three areas in England, which reported in early 2023. The findings were similar to those in Scotland. Government funding for bus retrofits was paused in April 2023 while further research was carried out to understand the causes of poor performance and assess the scope for improvement.

The research was overseen by the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chief scientific advisers, assisted by an external independent expert group. Today I have placed the bus retrofit performance report, containing the findings of this research, in the Libraries of both Houses. The performance report was commissioned by the Government and finalised in November 2023. In the interest of transparency, I am releasing the report today.

The report concludes that the real-world performance of bus retrofit SCR technology is highly variable, achieving 80% to 90% NOx reductions in some cases, but having a minimal effect in others. There is an average 11% reduction in NOx emissions overall from retrofitted buses, compared with non-retrofitted Euro V buses, which is significantly lower than the 80% reduction anticipated.

The research shows that a number of contributing factors can lead to poor performance, including the incorrect functioning of retrofit systems, the condition of bus engines and low catalyst operating temperatures. Based on these findings, I am announcing today a permanent end to further Government funding for retrofit and the closure of the clean vehicle retrofit accreditation scheme to further accreditations.

Moving forward, we will work with bus operators and retrofit suppliers to encourage a step change in the monitoring and maintenance of retrofit systems to get the best possible performance from the retrofitted buses currently in service. This will include ensuring that buses are providing live data showing retrofit performance, so that operators and depots can prioritise and target essential maintenance on the poorest-performing buses. Providing this data will be a condition of the buses remaining on the list of CVRAS-accredited vehicles.

Air pollution is the biggest environmental threat to human health, and this Government recognise the need to take preventive public health measures to tackle the biggest killers and support people to live longer, healthier lives. We will continue to work closely with the relevant local authorities to identify alternative measures to deliver compliance with legal NO2 limits in the shortest possible time.

[HCWS97]

Development Consent Decision Extension

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

This statement confirms that it is necessary to extend the deadline for a decision on the application by Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Ltd under the Planning Act 2008 for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange development consent order (“the application”).

Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, a decision on an application must be made within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless the power under section 107(3) is exercised to extend the deadline and a written ministerial statement is made to the Parliament announcing the new deadline.

The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on 10 June 2024. The current deadline for a decision on the application is, therefore, 10 September 2024.

The deadline for the decision is extended to 10 March 2025. The Department will however endeavour to issue the decision ahead of the extended deadline of 10 March 2025 where possible.

The reason for the extension to the decision deadline is that while the Secretary of State is minded to agree with the examining authority’s recommendation that she should withhold consent, she wishes to gather further information on certain matters and to allow for the analysis of that further information before taking her final decision. She is therefore publishing a letter today which explains why, having weighed the benefits and adverse effects of the proposed development, she is minded to refuse consent and sets out those matters on which she requires further information.

The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the Secretary of State’s decision on whether to grant the application development consent.

[HCWS78]

Shadow Great British Railways

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

Today I am announcing that I will be instructing the CEO of Network Rail, the director general for rail services in the Department for Transport, and the CEO of DfT OLR Holdings Ltd to establish a shadow Great British Railways. As the main organisations responsible for the operational railway, they will be working in closer collaboration, bringing together track and train to deliver for passengers and freight users, ahead of legislation to create Great British Railways as an arm’s length body.

Our manifesto committed to putting passengers at the heart of the service by reforming the railways and bringing them into public ownership. Great British Railways will be created to deliver a unified system that focuses on reliable, affordable, high-quality and efficient services, along with ensuring safety and accessibility.

GBR will put passengers back at the heart of the railways and introduce new measures to protect their interests. This will include paving the way for a powerful new passenger watchdog, the Passenger Standards Authority, to independently monitor standards and champion improvement in service performance against a range of measures. Great British Railways will reform the ticketing system, to make it simpler for passengers, drive innovation across the network, replace the current myriad of ticket types and maximise passenger growth.

There will be a statutory duty on GBR to promote the use of rail freight, alongside an overall growth target set by the Secretary of State. The Government will include safeguards to ensure that freight operators continue to receive fair access to the network. Open access operators have a proven track record in driving competition and better passenger outcomes, and where there is a case that open access operators can add value and capacity to the network, they will be able to.

While primary legislation is required to initiate the change to public ownership and establish GBR, this Government will begin delivering improvements for passengers and freight users straight away. That is why I am taking the immediate step of standing up shadow Great British Railways today. The three organisations will work collaboratively, taking a whole-system approach to decision making and driving improvement, whilst retaining their existing accountabilities and duties.

We can achieve change on how organisations work together quickly. But change on the ground, for those who use the railway, will take time. Our railways are fragmented and have been for decades, suffering from a short-sighted investment approach and not providing the services passengers and freight customers need. Delivering change for passengers will rely on building new levels of trust, openness and transparency across the industry, with diverse teams brought together that reflect the customers and communities we serve—setting the tone for reform and enabling us to create a modern and affordable railway for everyone in Britain.

I will expect shadow Great British Railways to be passenger focused and unlock barriers to delivery. I will also expect it to work alongside my team and me with rail stakeholders and partners across Great Britain, including national and regional governments, mayors, the trade unions, train operators, passenger and freight representative groups, the supply chain, the regulator and railway staff to deliver improvements. As part of the plans for reform, this includes the need to speed up training for drivers and collaborate with the sector to build resilience and improve productivity.

I will be writing to the chief executives and the director general to set their initial priorities and how I expect them to work together as shadow Great British Railways.

[HCWS67]

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

We on the Opposition Benches are blue in the face from making this argument: living standards are not raised through inflationary pay rises; they are raised by improving productivity.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

I would be interested to know whether the hon. Lady has spoken to her immediate predecessor to understand exactly the value of the reforms he was pursuing as Secretary of State, and if she was aware that they were worth less than half the cost of every time the railways went on strike under his leadership.

[Helen Whately]

Unfortunately, the right hon. Lady’s approach is deeply flawed and risks our facing more strikes in future, rather than fewer. [Interruption.] Yes, to directly answer her question, I can assure her that I have spoken to her predecessor in the role, and I know that the reforms proposed to modernise the railways were crucial not only to controlling increasing costs and fares, but to improving the reliability of our train services. Unfortunately, she gave all that up overnight when she gave away a bumper pay deal of almost 15%, with nothing from the other side to improve services.

The independent body I am proposing would look at pay and terms and conditions in the round. It could shed some light on who is getting a fair deal and help put modernisation at the top of the agenda in negotiations. Given that this Government seem to be set on creating a single huge employer across the network, as set out in their manifesto, which surely means harmonising pay and terms and conditions across many thousands of employees, none of whom I suspect will want to give up whatever terms they most value—a four-day working week, 34 days of annual leave and the extra money they negotiated to start using iPads are some examples—can the right hon. Lady imagine what effect this might have on ticket prices and the efficiency of our network? An independent pay review body could at least gather evidence and advise Government on what makes sense to fill jobs and provide value for money for the taxpayer.

Madam Chair, I am grateful to you for giving me some time to outline our amendments, and I am mindful that other Members wish to talk to their amendments or make maiden speeches, so I will wrap up my comments with a couple of final points. As we made clear on Second Reading, His Majesty’s official Opposition do not support this Bill. Our rail system needs reform, and we have set out plans to do that, but this Bill is not the right way to go about it. On the contrary, the Government are being driven by a flawed ideological belief along the lines of “public sector good, private sector bad”. It is not underpinned by evidence of what works, and they are not being straight with people about the possible downsides such as higher fares for passengers, higher costs for taxpayers and less reliable trains.

Why are the Government rushing through this Bill? Is it to please their Back Benchers, who we know are deeply unhappy about scrapping the winter fuel allowance, or is it to please their union paymasters? I know the right hon. Lady has promised everyone that she is going to move fast and fix things, but this looks more like moving fast and breaking things. I say sincerely to her, as I am sure she will want to make this legislation as good as it can be and, like me, wants to do the best possible job for all our constituents and for the country we serve, that she should please consider the amendments we have tabled and think hard about giving them the Government’s support.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It has been an extraordinary privilege to take this Bill through the House, as the first major piece of legislation to pass through the Commons under this Labour Government. The work to rebuild Britain and return to a politics of service started the moment we entered office. We pledged to act decisively to get our country moving and our public services working. I set out my motto for the Department for Transport—to move fast and fix things—which is why this Bill wastes no time in fulfilling one of our central manifesto commitments, calling time on the 30-year ideological privatised experiment on our railways that failed passengers, failed to modernise our railways and failed our economy. It is why this Government have begun the work of reform by bringing services back into public ownership, so that our railways will finally be run in the interests of passengers.

There will be immediate benefits. Our railways will serve the British public, be they passengers or the taxpayer, and as we bring services into public ownership, we will drive up performance. We will remove the burden of the millions of pounds squandered every year in private sector management fees. We will bring services into public hands as soon as their contracts expire, but if operators fail to deliver in line with those contracts—if they continue to let passengers down time and time again—I will not hesitate to use every tool at my disposal to drive up standards, including terminating contracts early where appropriate. In my meetings with Avanti and TransPennine and in the rail Minister’s meetings with Northern, London North Eastern Railway, East Midlands Railway and CrossCountry, as well as their Network Rail counterparts, we have been clear that we will not tolerate for any longer the poor performance that the last Government tolerated. My officials will drive improvements using the mechanisms in those contracts.

That work is already bearing fruit. Last week, LNER and ASLEF resolved their long-standing local dispute at no cost to the taxpayer, preventing 22 days of industrial action while ensuring an improved service for passengers. As a result, there were no driver cancellations over the weekend or this morning—the first time that has occurred for many years. Last month, we ended the longest strike in our railways’ history. It was a strike that cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in lost revenue and cost the economy more than a billion pounds, and a strike that the Conservative party deliberately prolonged and provoked, at enormous cost to the taxpayer and passengers.

A passenger-centred railway needs workforce reform; I do not shy away from that fact. As we move towards Great British Railways, we will waste no time driving those reforms forward. This is an area where the party opposite totally “failed”. That is a quote from the former Conservative Rail Minister, who is no longer in this place. To his credit, unlike his colleagues, he has at least had the decency to apologise for what he put our country and our railways through.

We are under no illusion: the Bill is not a silver bullet. It is the first stop on our journey to a modern railway for a modern Britain. We will introduce separate legislation later in the Session on the wider reforms that are required. Fixing the industry’s crumbling foundations is the only way to deliver the lasting improvements that passengers expect and deserve. Providing national leadership and a single point of accountability, Great British Railways will bring track and train together. It will plan services on a whole-system basis. It will increase innovation while cutting waste. It will put an end to outdated working and management practices, and end the operational meddling of Whitehall that has characterised the industry, particularly post covid. In short, we will create a simpler, safer and more reliable rail industry, relentlessly focused on passengers and on growing our economy.

That, of course, cannot happen overnight, but as passenger in chief, I am not prepared to wait. That is why today I have made a written ministerial statement formally standing up shadow Great British Railways, in order to bring together the Department’s passenger services, Network Rail and the operator of last resort. For the first time in 30 years, the railways will begin to act as one coherent system, and there will be the political backing for decisions to be made in the public interest. Shadow Great British Railways will review performance and finances. It will begin work to modernise our railways and unblock barriers to ticket reform, and will start to make urgent improvements now for passengers and freight.

Before I finish, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), for his excellent work, support and dedication of time to getting the Bill through the House. I also thank the Clerks, Chairs and parliamentary counsel, and of course my fantastic officials, who have worked at pace and done an excellent job supporting us in our first two very short months in office. Finally, I am hugely grateful to hon. Members from all parts of the House for their scrutiny and collaborative approach. I add my congratulations to the many hon. Members who made their maiden speech during the Bill’s passage.

The Bill represents a line in the sand. It shows that the Government are willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work to fix what is broken and reform what does not work. Getting this right matters for people up and down the country, for whom the railways are their route to opportunity. It matters for communities that need a reliable railway to support businesses, retain talent and attract investment, and it matters for this mission-focused Government, because the railways underpin our efforts to rebuild Britain, from building economic growth to providing clean energy, and to deliver hope and opportunity to everyone, wherever they live. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Transport Infrastructure

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

The financial inheritance this Government have received is extremely challenging. The previous Administration has left a £22 billion public spending gap this year alone, £2.9 billion of which is unfunded transport commitments. Communities up and down the country have been given hope for new transport infrastructure, with no plans or funds to deliver them. This Government will not make that mistake. This Government will rebuild our economic foundations while restoring transparency and public trust.

In recent weeks, the gap between promised schemes and the money available to deliver them has been made clear to me. There has been a lack of openness with the public about the status of schemes, some of which were cancelled or paused by the previous Government, without proper communication to the public.

As the Chancellor informed Parliament, I am commissioning an internal review of the Department for Transport’s capital spend portfolio. We will bring in external expertise and move quickly to make recommendations about current and future schemes. This review will support the development of our new long-term strategy for transport, developing a modern and integrated network with people at its heart, and ensuring that transport infrastructure can be delivered efficiently and on time.

I am determined that we build the transport infrastructure to drive economic growth and opportunity in every part of the country, and to deliver value for money for taxpayers. That ambition requires a fundamental reset to how we approach capital projects with public trust, industry confidence and Government integrity at its heart.

[HCWS49]

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Louise Haigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

At the general election, when millions of people called time on years of dysfunction, disruption and decline, they demanded change, not only in how the country is governed but in how it works, because for too many, from our economy to our public services, the country simply does not work any more. The things on which we rely are letting us down too often. Lifelines have turned into liabilities. That is why this Government have already started the work of rebuilding Britain, brick by brick, Bill by Bill. Five transport Bills in this year’s King’s Speech show not just the scale of our ambition, but how transport is at the heart of our plans for change. Growing the economy, becoming a clean energy superpower, making our streets safer, spreading opportunity, rebuilding our NHS—whatever this Government’s mission, transport is now mission critical.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Transport Secretary for giving way so early in her comments. There is a very controversial planning proposal for South Leicestershire, which is sitting on her desk as we speak—it is for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange. I am for rail freight interchanges, but the issue that has united Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative politicians in and around the area is that there are about five other rail freight interchanges within a 30-mile radius. Can she give a commitment from the Dispatch Box that whatever she says today will not ride roughshod over the views of Labour-led Rugby council and Conservative-led Blaby district council? Both have very serious concerns about this matter.

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting his views on the record. He will know that I have a quasi-judicial role in determining the development consent order for that project. He is right to say that it is on my desk now, and I am considering it carefully. Nothing in today’s Bill will influence that decision.

National renewal requires nothing less than the biggest overhaul of our public transport in a generation. That starts with improving performance on our railways and kick-starting reform, which brings us to today’s Bill. It should surprise no one in this House when I say that our railways are not fit for purpose. For two and a half years, I said as much from the Opposition Benches to no fewer than three Tory Transport Secretaries. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), to her place. I should note that my three predecessors, who sat on this side of the House, are no longer Members—I am not sure whether it is her job or mine that is cursed, but I wish her luck in the role.

Under three Tory Transport Secretaries, we were promised reform, yet, three years after Keith Williams’s review, little has changed. We were promised better services, yet some of the worst-performing operators were rewarded with new, lengthy contracts and handed performance bonuses.

[Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)]

When can we expect to see the shambles that is Avanti West Coast kicked into touch and returned to public ownership? I would certainly welcome that, and so would lots of northerners up and down the country.

[Louise Haigh]

I had a feeling that my hon. Friend might mention Avanti, and he knows my views. One of the first meetings I held as Secretary of State was with Avanti. I called in representatives of its Network Rail business unit for being one of the worst-performing operators—a meeting that was not held by any of my three predecessors while I was shadow Secretary of State. I made it clear that Avanti’s level of performance will not be tolerated, and we will use all measures under its national rail contract to hold it to account. That does not exclude terminating the contract before it expires if Avanti defaults.

We were promised High Speed 2 to Manchester, yet that was axed—in Manchester, no less—leaving a west coast main line that is now bursting at the seams. Meanwhile, passengers continue to suffer, with overcrowded trains and poor facilities, record-high cancellations—almost one in three trains is late—some of the most expensive fares in Europe, and regular bouts of industrial action.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I welcome the Minister to her place and wish her well in her new role? I thank her for bringing forward a Bill to modernise the railways.

I make a plea on behalf of those who are disabled. Whenever we have had debates on the railways in this Chamber, including Adjournment debates, the issue of disabled access has come up over and over again. Does the Secretary of State agree that disabled access at all railway stations should be a bare minimum and must be a priority, given that we have commuters who must still take private taxis to get to a wheelchair-friendly station? Further, does she agree that rural communities should not be disadvantaged by the closure of small stops in order to provide more streamlined timings?

[Louise Haigh]

I marvel, as always, at the hon. Gentleman’s ability to find something of interest and relevance to the debate at hand. He is absolutely right to say that accessibility is far too often overlooked, and we made it clear in the plans we set out ahead of the general election that accessibility would be one of the key measures against which we would eventually hold Great British Railways to account. The way in which people with accessibility needs are treated by our public transport system is undignified.

The broken model that our railways rely on is holding back talent, holding back opportunity and holding back Britain. It must be fixed, and we are wasting no time in doing so. By amending the Railways Act 1993, today’s Bill will fulfil one of our central manifesto commitments: to bring rail passenger services into public ownership. It overturns the privatisation by the John Major Government and allows us to take action as soon as contracts expire, or earlier if operators default on their contracts. It is a sensible approach, ensuring that taxpayers do not fork out huge sums to compensate operating companies for ending contracts early. Public ownership will become the default option for delivering passenger services, instead of the last resort.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Secretary of State and thank her for bringing in this excellent Bill. Since coming under the operator of last resort, TransPennine Express, which had been one of the worst-performing rail companies, became the most improved operator, so will this Bill mean that passengers on South Western Railway will see the same level of improvement, and how long will it take?

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we have seen immediate improvements on bringing previously privately run operators into public ownership, but we can go further still, and that is the benefit of taking the two-pronged approach that I will set out later in my speech. She should be in no doubt that South Western will be brought into public ownership, as will all remaining contracts within the first term of this Government, and ideally within the first three years of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. We will act swiftly. I have no doubt that we will hear plenty of voices from the Opposition Benches labelling this an ideological move. Those accusations are way off the mark. There is nothing ideological about fixing what is broken and reforming what does not work.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I very much welcome this Bill and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all her work in getting us to this point. Since our railways were taken out of public ownership, tens of billions of pounds have been lost to shareholder dividends and the inefficiency of a privatised system, all while ticket prices have soared. Does she agree that it is high time that we put passengers before profiteers?

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is what is at the heart of these proposals. This is an opportunity to genuinely reform our railways from top to bottom, to ensure that passengers and growing the railways are the only objectives that they should serve—not private operators, not shareholders, not the whims of the engineers that run Network Rail. This is a once in a generation opportunity to make sure that our public transport system serves the public, so it is not ideological. What was ideological was the previous Government sitting back and presiding over a broken system while passengers and the economy paid a heavy price. I know that the Tories have been trying to pretend that the last 14 years of failure have not happened, but they cannot deny that after 30 years of privatisation we find ourselves in a position where taxpayers are responsible for 50% of the rail industry’s income and underwrite almost every penny spent, while profits are siphoned off to shareholders.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Secretary of State. I note that clause 2 of the Bill talks about the extension of the current contracts. Could she set out the circumstances in which that could occur, because we know that rail safety is best when track and train are brought together, as they would be under Great British Railways?

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

Clause 2 is purely a fail-safe if, for whatever reason, DOHL—the operator of last resort—does not have the capacity to take in a private operator’s contract at the moment it expires. We have allowed ourselves that flexibility if taking on a contract is not practically possible but, to demonstrate that it is not enabling franchising or private operations by the back door, we have also included the provision to remove that power again, to make sure that public ownership remains the default. It will happen only in exceptional circumstances for a very limited time.

As the railways’ passenger-in-chief, I am acting decisively today. This is the only response to the failure of privatisation to deliver reliable and affordable services for passengers. It also makes financial sense, saving tens of millions of pounds each year in private sector fees. That money can now be reinvested in the railways. Running the railways in the interest of passengers and taxpayers, not to the benefit of shareholders, also makes operational sense.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Louise Haigh]

Yes, and I will then make some progress.

[Kim Johnson]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new position.

As a long-suffering Avanti West Coast passenger, I welcome the Government’s prioritisation of this Bill, but does my right hon. Friend agree that railway workers should not be outsourced? Will she say a little about what she intends to do to ensure that they are not?

[Louise Haigh]

Network Rail has done a considerable amount of work on insourcing over the last few years, and I will ask it to do a more comprehensive review to see whether there is further it can do. As private operators are brought in, their contracts and supply chains will be considered, to ensure that they are delivering the best possible service for passengers. My hon. Friend raises a very important point.

The case for public ownership should not be controversial. After all, rail infrastructure was brought into public ownership by the last Labour Government following private sector failure. Germany, France and Spain, our European neighbours, all have models of public ownership. Indeed, the architect of the previous Government’s rail reform plan endorsed Labour’s plans ahead of the general election.

As has been said, four franchises—Northern, TransPennine, Southeastern and London and North Eastern Railway—are already in public hands and have seen some improvements. As someone who relies on TransPennine, I accept that it is still far from perfect, but cancellations have fallen from 20% in January 2023 to around 5% since it was taken into public ownership. LNER recently achieved a financial surplus, which was returned to the taxpayer.

Bringing the remaining 10 operators under public control will take time but, as passenger-in-chief, I am putting them on notice. I will not tolerate the status quo, I will not hesitate to demand improvements, and I will not be afraid to rip up contracts early if operators default on their obligations to the public.

The Bill means that the railways will finally be run for the public by the public, but owning the house is just the first step. Next, we must fix the crumbling foundations. That means fundamental reform, no ifs and no buts. We will set up Great British Railways as a new directing mind. Running the network, both track and train, as one integrated system will finally put an end to the fragmentation and waste that make our railways among the least efficient because of their spiralling costs and falling revenues, competing interests and industry inertia.

We will build a growing, innovative railway that is relentlessly and single-mindedly focused on passengers. There is no questioning the benefits at stake. Because GBR will take a whole-system view, we will be able to simplify the overly complex fare system so passengers can be confident that they are getting the best value. We will take aim at overcrowding by moving rolling stock to where it is needed in the network. We will end the piecemeal approach to innovation and roll out benefits such as digital pay-as-you-go and digital season tickets, and we will put accessibility at the core of our rail offer so that passengers with disabilities can expect a consistent level of service.

Of course, such change does not happen overnight. That is why setting up GBR and delivering our plans in full will be the focus of separate legislation later in the Session. But we will not sit back and wait for that legislation to be on the statute book; we plan to use every lever available to us urgently to improve services for passengers. That includes creating shadow Great British Railways, which will focus squarely on driving improvements in the short term, from ticketing to better services. This is a crucial next step, putting passengers back at the heart of the railways and firing the starting gun for reform.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

What benefit will this Bill bring to my North Cornwall constituents who currently do not have a single railway station? Will the Secretary of State please explain to them what mainline train services will be coming to towns in North Cornwall such as Bude, Bodmin, Wadebridge and Launceston?

[Louise Haigh]

As the Chancellor has set out today, we will not only be reviewing the previous Government’s unfunded, underfunded and, in some places, cancelled capital projects, but we will be taking forward an integrated long-term infrastructure strategy. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about his constituents’ needs.

When I became Transport Secretary, I told the Department that we had a new motto: “Move fast and fix things.” The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, the first major piece of legislation under this Labour Government, shows we are doing exactly that. The 30-year privatisation experiment has failed. Passenger satisfaction remains too low, while costs soar. Even before the pandemic, half of all trains in the north of England were late. All of this failure has consequences—communities cut off, talent stifled and ambition limited. It leaves Britain stuck in the sidings, unable to realise this Government’s mission of economic growth.

Today we start the work of repair, bringing our railways back into public service, restoring pride to an industry we should be proud of, and taking back control so that our railways finally work for everyone, wherever they live. In this mission, I am absolutely determined. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sustainable Aviation

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

Sustainable aviation fuel is an important part of the strategy to decarbonise air travel. It can be used in existing aircraft, and it emits on average 70 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than using fossil jet fuel on a life cycle basis.

Developing, using and producing SAF will help drive our missions to kickstart economic growth and make Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment to secure the UK aviation industry's long-term future, including through promoting sustainable aviation fuels.

Today, in addition to the announcement we have already made in the King’s Speech on 17 July that a Bill will be introduced to support sustainable aviation fuel production, we are taking a further important step in confirming that, subject to parliamentary approval, we will introduce a SAF mandate to start from 1 January 2025. We will be one of the first countries in the world to legislate in this way. We are also today confirming the full policy detail of the mandate.

Today’s announcement is good for aviation, the environment and for the UK overall: sustainable aviation fuel production is estimated to add over £1.8 billion to the economy and over 10,000 jobs across the country while supporting decarbonisation. The SAF mandate will drive demand for SAF in the UK, deliver emission reductions up to 2.7 MtCO2e in 2030 and up to 6.3 MtCO2e in 2040 and provide investor confidence that the UK will be a place to produce, use and supply SAF.

SAF mandate

The SAF mandate will start in 2025 at 2% of total UK jet fuel demand, increase on a linear basis to 10% in 2030 and to 22% in 2040. From 2040, the obligation will remain at 22% until there is greater certainty regarding SAF supply.

The mandate will encourage the innovation of advanced fuels that can generate greater emission reductions and the diversification of feedstocks to reduce dependencies on scarce resources, by including in the mandate:

a cap on the feedstocks used in the hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids process, but not until other types of SAF are also commercially viable to recognise the important part that HEFA SAF will play in the 2020s. HEFA supply will not be limited under the mandate for the first two years, fall to 71% in 2030 and still contribute 35% in 2040;

a separate obligation on power to liquid fuels from 2028 that reaches 3.5% of total jet fuel demand in 2040.

The mandate will include a buy-out mechanism for both the main and power to liquid obligations to incentivise supply while protecting consumers where suppliers are unable to secure a supply of SAF. These will be set at £4.70 and £5.00 per litre of fuel, respectively. These provide a significant incentive for fuel suppliers to supply SAF into the market rather than pay the buy-out. They also set a maximum price for the scheme, and therefore deliver emission reductions at an acceptable cost. The plan includes a review mechanism to help minimise the impact on ticket fares for passengers.

We will also work closely across Government on feedstock availability to ensure that feedstocks are used in a sustainable and productive way.

SAF revenue certainty mechanism

The Bill announced on 17 July will introduce a revenue certainty mechanism for SAF producers who are looking to invest in new plants in the UK. This builds on the SAF mandate, which will create demand for SAF by setting targets on fuel suppliers to use a proportion of SAF. This new sector will create jobs and growth opportunities in the UK, help secure a supply of SAF for UK airlines, and enhance energy security.

There are a number of SAF projects being developed across the UK. Bringing in a revenue certainty mechanism will help to reduce risk, giving investors the confidence they need to invest in UK SAF plants. It will increase the likelihood SAF plants will be built in the UK, thereby securing a supply of SAF for the UK aviation sector and supporting the delivery of the SAF mandate.

These two SAF initiatives will drive the Government’s mission-driven plan to kick start economic growth and make Britain a clean energy superpower.

[HCWS16]

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

Car insurance costs have increased by 80% since the Secretary of State came into office. If he is intent on ending the war on motorists, what has he done about it?

[Mr Speaker]

Remember that we are now in topical questions, folks.

[Louise Haigh]

Given that the Secretary of State had advance notice of my question, I am afraid that his answer shows how out of touch with reality he has become. Car insurance is not a luxury but a legal requirement, and it is completely unaffordable for millions of drivers. There has been a £219 increase in the average premium in two years. Instead of parroting conspiracy theories about 15-minute cities, why does he not do his job, take action, demand action from regulators, call in the Competition and Markets Authority, and act on soaring insurance premiums?

[Mr Harper]

I will say a couple of things. First, the hon. Lady called for action. My hon. Friend the roads Minister has already been meeting the industry and Treasury Ministers, who are responsible for the industry regulator, so we are already doing that. As I said, this is an issue not just in the UK but elsewhere.

Secondly, as I said, the hon. Lady said in her letter that she was looking at outlawing the ability for insurers to price according to risk in local areas. I am sure that hon. Members noticed that she has not denied that, so they will know that she is proposing for people across the country to face higher costs to reflect the higher crime that we see in inner London, where her Labour Mayor has failed to get a grip.

Rail Manufacturing: Job Losses

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on steps being taken to prevent job losses in the UK’s rail manufacturing sector.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)]

Mr Speaker, before I start, may I thank you for having me up in your constituency of Chorley over the Easter holiday? I pass on my deepest condolences to you and your family for the loss of your father.

I thank the hon. Lady for her urgent question. I am responding on behalf of the Secretary of State, who will shortly be meeting the Alstom group chairman and chief executive to discuss a potential way forward. The Secretary of State will come to the House and make a statement at the appropriate time, noting the fact that they are sensitive commercial discussions.

As set out in the comprehensive open letter from the Secretary of State to the hon. Lady on 29 March, the Government are well aware that companies such as Alstom and Hitachi face short-term gaps in their order books. The letter set out clearly that these are complex problems to which there are not simple solutions, but the Government have been doing everything they can to support the workforce over many months, and continue to do so.

While Alstom is currently consulting its unions and employees on possible job losses, this must be a commercial decision for Alstom. The Government have been working with the company to explore options to enable it to continue manufacturing at its Derby site. We have convened a cross-Whitehall group to advise on how to support continued production at Derby and how best to support those workers who are at risk of redundancy. We have held similar discussions with Hitachi, both in correspondence and face to face. We remain keen to work with Hitachi as it looks for commercial solutions to guarantee the long-term sustainable future of its Newton Aycliffe site. Hitachi is not currently consulting on any changes to its workforce.

The fact remains that the market for passenger trains is a competitive one. The Department cannot guarantee orders for individual manufacturers. Trains are major assets with a lifetime of 35 to 40 years, so there will naturally be peaks and troughs in the procurement cycle. Nevertheless, we expect substantial continued demand for new trains. In recent months, London North Eastern Railway confirmed an order of 10 new tri-mode trains for the east coast main line. A tender for new trains for TransPennine Express was launched in December 2023.

In January this year, I wrote to train manufacturers to outline the pipeline of current and expected orders for new trains. That included details of current competitions for Northern, Southeastern, Chiltern and TransPennine Express, and an expected procurement by Great Western Railway. The contracts are worth an estimated £3.6 billion, with more than 2,000 vehicles to be procured over the coming years. In the meantime, we will continue to work with UK manufacturers, including Alstom and Hitachi, to ensure that there is a strong and sustainable future for the rail industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

May I add my personal condolences to you, Mr Speaker, for the loss of your great father? He was a fine man and a great champion for Warrington and for workers’ rights.

Britain’s rail manufacturing is in crisis. Two of our largest train manufacturers have warned that their very presence in this country is at risk. Alstom, in Derby, is staring down the barrel of 1,300 job losses, and Hitachi, in Newton Aycliffe, another 700. In their supply chains, it is more than 16,000 jobs. Alstom has been making trains in Derby for 147 years, but both Alstom and Hitachi are clear that their uncertain future is thanks to this Government’s inaction. Alstom’s managing director has said that “continued delay” in providing “certainty and clarity” from the Transport Secretary is to blame.

The fact is that the Secretary of State has known about this problem for months. I first raised Hitachi’s concerns with him in this House more than a year ago. Both manufacturers have said that the situation could be rectified by amending their order schedules for a small number of existing, privately financed trains, and we understand that the Transport Secretary has been privately promising them action on that for months. But crucial deadlines have been missed, avoidable job losses have already been made and local businesses have already been forced to close.

The Minister dismisses people’s livelihoods as “peaks and troughs”. In his letter to me of 29 March, the Transport Secretary, as usual, ducked all responsibility. He claimed that he has no influence over procurement contracts, yet his Department has varied contracts in the past. He claimed that this is nothing to do with his mismanagement of HS2, but both struggling manufacturers claim otherwise. He claimed that he is providing certainty for the industry, yet he is refusing to bring forward his long-delayed rail reforms, or set out a rolling stock strategy for the industry.

Britain was the country that created the railways, but that legacy is being trashed by a Conservative Government content to oversee its managed decline. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State finally take responsibility, put aside their ideological opposition to supporting British business, and finally step up for the people of Derby and Newton Aycliffe and for Britain’s railways?

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Lady asks whether the Secretary of State will take responsibility and work on this matter. He is doing that right now. He is about to start a meeting with the chief executive and chairman. And that is not the first meeting: he has held eight meetings with Alstom and eight with Hitachi to find solutions. Our officials in the Department for Transport have worked incredibly hard, as has everybody in the whole Derby family—the train operator, the unions that I have met and the workforce. We are all rowing together to try to find a solution.

I have to say that it does not help to see this cause being used almost like a political football. As an example, I did not use the expression “peaks and troughs” when it came to dealing with individuals. I said that the procurement cycle leads to that. My words will be clear in Hansard, and I resent having them misinterpreted, because it impacts on people and their feelings. I find it quite irresponsible of the Opposition to do that.

Another example of getting the facts completely wrong is the continued mention of HS2. Let me be clear: the order for HS2 was for 54 trains. That order remains at 54 trains, because they were always for phase 1, which is going ahead. The schedule remains the same and the number of trains remains the same, so let us deal with the facts rather than the fiction and scaremongering that I hear so often.

When it comes to facts, let me say that three of the four train manufacturers we are proud to have in this country have been building their plant here since 2010, under this Conservative Government. No doubt they decided to do so because we have commissioned 8,000 new rolling stock vehicles since 2012. The average age of rolling stock was 21 years back in 2016; it is now under 17 years, because we are investing in rolling stock, and there will be more orders. None the less, it is a complex legal solution that requires sensible minds, and I am very proud that the Secretary of State is leading on that endeavour.