Diesel Vehicles: Defeat Devices

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of defeat devices in diesel vehicles.

It is a true pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

It was over a decade ago that the automotive industry, and indeed the world, was rocked by dieselgate, the Volkswagen emissions scandal. The public were horrified to learn about how the trusted German car giant Volkswagen—the one that gave us the “Herbie” kids film franchise and those iconic circular badges that were so beloved of the Beastie Boys—had knowingly faked vehicle emissions tests via defeat devices. Those devices are software designed to alter a vehicle’s performance, falsify results and limit emissions during the regulatory testing period, only to switch to their true polluting selves when they are driven on open roads.

VW’s range of diesel compact cars had been marketed as a green alternative to petrol, but it was found that it had been knowingly cooking the books to the point that the US Environmental Protection Agency found VW’s top people guilty of conspiracy to defraud customers. Confidence was shattered, share prices nosedived, reputational damage was done, vehicles were recalled, fines were paid, heads rolled at the managerial level, and the once-encouraged diesel became discredited—its fate in London was finally sealed by the ultra low emission zone.

We were assured that lessons would be learned, yet despite the outlawing of defeat devices, the problem seems to be wider than originally thought. “Dieselgate 2: The Sequel” is proceeding very slowly through the courts. I think there are several cases. Multiple models and manufacturers are accused of the same thing: spewing out dangerous and excessive emissions due to cheat technology. Companies have been knowingly deceiving drivers. It feels a bit like match fixing to those of us of a certain age—Bruce Grobbelaar comes to mind. Consumers have been conned once again into believing that they were driving greener, cleaner diesel cars. Results have been rigged. It feels almost as if I cannot go on the internet now without some sort of pop-up advert rearing its head—“Have you driven a Mercedes, a Ford, a Nissan, a Renault, a Citroën or a Peugeot between X and Y years? If so, click here to see how much compensation you could get.” It is all a little bit like ambulance chasing, is it not?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for bringing us this debate. She is right to say that this does not just happen in England; it happens across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Vehicles registered in Northern Ireland in 2015 were among those fitted with illegal software during the Volkswagen emissions scandal. Enforcement action uncovered diesel lorries operating in Northern Ireland with illegal emissions-cheating hardware deliberately disabling pollution controls. For 17 years, our MOT system in Northern Ireland failed to test diesel emissions properly, allowing such vehicles to operate undetected for too long while damaging air quality and undermining trust in regulations. Does the hon. Lady agree that more must be done to close regulatory gaps, strengthen enforcement and ensure that defeat devices are fully eliminated from all our roads throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman makes such an excellent point as he always does. It is an honour to be intervened on by him. As he said, this was done with intent all over the British Isles, in all our nations. He mentioned the VW scandal. As I say, there could be worse round the corner. Despite the outlawing of these defeat devices, VW could just be the tip of a very murky iceberg. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this is not just about the men in white coats in the laboratory getting their technical results. This is not a fringe issue: it affects all our constituents and has real life consequences. Air pollution is one of our most pressing environmental challenges. Noxious nitrogen oxide emissions can cause respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease and childhood asthma—even premature deaths, which have been quantified.

In London, the city where we are now and where I am an MP, the devastating human impact was tragically illustrated by the desperately sad case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah: dead at just nine years old. Hers was the first ever case in which the cause of death on the certificate was “pollution”. The family had lived by the south circular; the north circular is in my seat. Ella’s mum, Rosamund, has been such a tireless campaigner in pushing for Ella’s law. Mums for Lungs has also done great work, while Parent Power had a breakfast event this morning on the other side of the building.

Clean air is not a “nice to have”, but an essential. We would not force a kid to drink dirty water, yet we expect them to breathe toxic air. Sadiq Khan’s ultra low emission zone in this city has helped to clean London of dirty diesel, but we know that children in vulnerable communities are the most susceptible.

These cars were bought in good faith. Remember Gordon Brown’s 2001 Budget: in those days, buying a diesel vehicle was incentivised. It was seen as environmentally superior to petrol because of the miles per gallon; in those days, people were not looking at NOx, but more at carbon dioxide. In that year’s Budget, I think, the road tax—and certain things for company fleets—actually encouraged diesel.

The VW scandal was a genuine scandal, just like the others I have seen since I have been here such as the contaminated blood and Post Office scandals. In its aftermath, the market share of diesels in this country has fallen from 50% in 2014 to just 5% now. But the bigger dieselgate 2 is on the horizon. If defeat devices have dishonestly been fitted to vehicles and emitted pollutants at levels way beyond what is legal and what consumers were led to believe, that leaves huge holes in Government enforcement and regulatory credibility. This will have been poisoning people.

I have a range of questions for the Minister. Although these vehicles are not being sold new any more, figures from Mums for Lungs show that 7.5 million diesel cars—a quarter of all UK cars—are still on our roads. They are responsible for 30% of total NOx emissions. There are also the vans, buses, the HGVS—if we add all those up, we see that action must occur.

In autumn 2024, the Department for Transport confirmed that it is investigating the possible use of defeat device trickery by several manufacturers. Rather than delve into the lengthy legal proceedings today, I want to raise questions about that Government inquiry, which is at best sketchy and is bound up in public health and consumer protection. It all seems to be shrouded in secrecy. There is the prospect, here, of illegally high emissions and asthma being in the equation, so every moment the results are delayed puts more children’s lungs at risk. At a time when everyone wants growth, Mums for Lungs has calculated that the UK economy is losing: action on dieselgate is expected to cost our economy £36 billion in the next 14 years. There are many reasons why we should address this issue.

I am asking the Minister—my good, hon. Friend—to step up a gear. The sheer number of potential claimants in dieselgate 2—1.8 million cars, potentially—dwarfs the settlement that eventually came out of VWgate; that 2022 settlement compensated only 91,000 consumers. This latest issue affects every constituency in the nation—including yours, Ms Lewell.

I have some questions: what is the status of the Department’s investigation? What is the timeline for its commencement? Where is it now? When will it conclude? What teeth does it have—i.e. what are the enforcement powers that the Department is prepared to deploy in cases of non-compliance? The Environment Act 2021 strengthened the Government’s ability to require manufacturers to recall vehicles where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they do not meet applicable environmental standards. Is the Department prepared to use those powers when appropriate? Where does the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency fit into that process? What happens to vehicles currently on UK roads if they are found to be emitting unlawfully high levels of pollutants? Will the Government consider requiring their temporary suspension from use until they are brought into compliance? Could they have a little bit of tinkering and be okay?

According to one report from an international climate think-tank, excess emissions may already lead to 16,000 premature deaths in the UK and 30,000 new cases of childhood asthma. Overnight, Mums for Lungs sent me a whole load of new figures that I have not entirely processed, but which I can pass on to the Minister. If manufacturers are found to have breached the rules, who bears the financial burden of remedial action? Surely not the consumers who bought these vehicles in good faith. They thought that they were doing the right thing and believed that they were compliant. How do the Government intend to safeguard public health in the interim?

In 2016, the Tory Government launched an inquiry into the use of defeat devices by VW, but ultimately, they did not prosecute. The Transport Committee at the time expressed concerns about the Department for Transport’s “ambivalence” towards VW’s use of defeat devices. It described the Department as being

“too slow to assess the use of its powers”.

In other words, it was asleep at the wheel. This Minister is different from that former Minister, and I am sure that he will not repeat the mistakes of the last Tory Government.

There is now a second chance. The DFT should clearly prioritise the interests of the public and consumers in its current investigation. A decade after we were duped over diesel in the first emissions scandal, the public should not be left wondering whether enforcement powers will be used if wrongdoing is found. Court proceedings can take forever, but we must have assurances of urgency, transparency and consequence in the Government’s investigation, which is within their control.

Communities deserve clean air and consumers deserve honesty and protection. I am no Jeremy Clarkson. I cycle more than I drive, but I do both, and I take public transport every weekday. I find that it is difficult to know what is best and it can be bewildering—what is up or down and what is happening. The goalposts are constantly changing. What is it that is demonised? First it was petrol, then it was diesel. Now they have both been overtaken by electric, which is what we should all be using. I am pleased to see the roll-out of the Enviro400 and Enviro500 buses in London. However, for the average consumer it can be bewildering when the advice keeps changing and it can then feel a bit punitive.

Environmental standards must mean what they say. If they are breached there must be proportionate and decisive action. For far too long, motor manufacturers in the UK have victimised the public. They have misled consumers about pollution emitted by diesel engines, and they have put millions of citizens at risk simply because they live or work near roads. VW recovered its reputation to some extent. Certainly, on the Nextdoor app, people are still complaining that its badges are being nicked from the front of their cars. Whoever is doing that, can they stop? It is completely unnecessary to remove the circular VW logo.

These companies should come clean and make things right with those who they have harmed. The Government should do everything in their power to ensure that the public are in the driving seat. We should not have to wait for dieselgate 3.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you, Ms Lewell—my favourite sand dancer—chairing the debate this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this debate on defeat devices in diesel vehicles. This is an important subject that rightly attracts scrutiny from Parliament, the public and campaigners. I acknowledge the concerns that my hon. Friend set out in her parliamentary questions and recent public commentary, which reflect the strength of feeling about this issue and the need for transparency and accountability from both manufacturers and regulators. Those concerns are entirely legitimate, and I welcome the opportunity to set out clearly how they align with the Government’s determination to uphold emissions standards and to ensure that the public can have full confidence in the environmental performance of vehicles on our roads.

I begin by reaffirming this Government’s commitment to delivering greener, cleaner transport and to reducing harmful emissions that affect communities across the country. Road transport emissions have significant implications for public health. We continue to take firm, evidence-based action wherever practices risk undermining public trust or air quality. Alongside our compliance and enforcement work, we are delivering wider measures to cut harmful emissions, including by supporting the transition to zero-emission vehicles, as my hon. Friend referenced.

We have consistently said that prohibited defeat devices are illegal, are misleading for drivers and can have negative impacts on the public. My Department has considerably strengthened its oversight of vehicle emissions in recent years. Since 2016, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency’s vehicle market surveillance unit has carried out increasingly rigorous emissions testing programmes using both laboratory and real-world methods to identify suspicious performance. The DVSA actively investigates potential non-compliance, and where its assessments identify issues, manufacturers are required to take corrective action in line with DVSA’s published enforcement policy.

This Government are undertaking a targeted and comprehensive programme of assessments, which formally commenced in early 2025, to assess a range of Euro 5 and Euro 6 diesel cars and vans produced between 2010 and 2018. As my hon. Friend would probably expect, we are focusing on vehicles with the greatest potential to cause harm, and our remediation actions are designed to reduce real-world emissions as quickly and effectively as possible. Although those models are no longer entering the market, they remain on our roads and the public quite rightly expect them to meet the standards set out at approval. I think, at present, there are 110 individual vehicle models that are under active investigation. That reflects the scale and complexity of the challenge.

To be absolutely clear, every vehicle model within scope will undergo a full assessment, and manufacturers are now working to firm, defined deadlines. The DVSA has completed assessments on a number of models and is now reviewing detailed submissions from manufacturers, with further assessments underway. We will conclude the process as soon as evidence allows, to ensure that any findings are robust, fair and accountable. Where non-compliance is identified, manufacturers will be required to take corrective action and enforcement will escalate where deadlines are not met. That approach is intended to achieve real-world improvements in air quality swiftly and fairly.

The Government have also strengthened the enforcement framework available to regulators. Since 2018, it has been an offence to place vehicles containing prohibited defeat systems on the market. My Department is equipped to require swift corrective action to address non-compliance. We are also considering whether we need to go further and build on our existing powers under assimilated EU law to require compulsory environmental recalls to deliver the intended outcomes.

Let me be clear: if non-compliance is confirmed, the DVSA will require manufacturers to take whatever remedial action is necessary, at no cost to consumers. Where any serious risk is evidenced, that remedial action must be taken without delay.

On transparency, I fully recognise the public interest in understanding the outcomes of this work, and manufacturer-specific findings will be published once investigations are complete and decisions are final. That approach is entirely consistent with other market surveillance activity. Waiting until that point is important to ensure that due process is followed, to avoid prejudicing live investigations and to maintain the integrity of any future enforcement action.

[Dr Huq]

I like what I have heard so far because, up to now, this has all been a bit mysterious. I wonder if it might be a good idea for me to meet the Minister. As a London MP, I have experience with ULEZ—we have a riding school in my seat, and an exemption was made for a horsebox. As I have experience of what happens in London, it would be good to talk this through, but it is impossible in a debate like this. Would the Minister meet me at some point?

[Simon Lightwood]

How could I refuse? Of course I will meet my hon. Friend.

Publishing incomplete or provisional findings would risk misleading consumers and compromising the quality of the technical assessments underway, as my hon. Friend will appreciate. To support transparency, I am pleased to say that the Department will shortly publish its dedicated gov.uk landing page. That will bring together all the emissions compliance publications, and once investigations are concluded, the final outcomes of the programme will be added to that page for full public access.

The programme has been developed in close collaboration with the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the UK Health Security Agency. That ensures that our approach draws on the full breadth of Government expertise. That collective effort means that our response is co-ordinated and informed by those who play a direct role in delivering cleaner, safer vehicles.

We are closely following the Pan-NOx group litigation concerning alleged defeat devices. Once the court hands down its judgment, we will consider carefully any implications, including whether changes are needed to our policy framework or enforcement approach. Internationally, we continue to work closely with regulators in EU member states, which helps us to anticipate emerging issues, align on best practice and ensure that manufacturers face a coherent regulatory environment across markets. It reinforces our ability to act decisively where cross-border issues arise, recognising that emissions compliance is a global challenge.

To conclude, a great deal has been achieved, and more is underway. The Government are delivering a thorough and proportionate programme designed to address potential non-compliance swiftly, transparently and in line with our legal duties. Our shared objective is clear: deliver cleaner air, protect public health, uphold public confidence and ensure that the vehicles on our roads meet the standards that the public expect and deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

HS2 Reset

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to talk about the Dawlish scheme. I must admit that it is a topic I will need to take up with the Rail Minister, and I will be happy to give the hon. Gentleman a response in writing in respect of the merits of the scheme.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her honesty as she set out this latest reset, necessitated by the mess that the Tories left. Old Oak Common is part of my constituency, and this week eight associations across two boroughs have banded together to create the Old Oak Alliance, with the purpose of fighting for compensation and mitigation in the current circumstances. They will be bitterly disappointed by the news of even more prolonged disruption. Will my right hon. Friend meet me—or, better still, come on a site visit to meet them and see what they are putting up with? We are dealing with a company whose idea of engagement is jam tomorrow and death by PowerPoint.

[Heidi Alexander]

I am sure the leadership of HS2 would be very concerned to hear that description of the way that the project is engaging with local people. That is not what I expect of an infrastructure company, and I am sure it is not what the chief executive of HS2 Ltd would want either. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Airport Expansion

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I have spoken to the right hon. Member about Manston in opposition and in government. We wait to see what will be brought forward there, but it could be an exciting opportunity, particularly for cargo; we could have zero emission vessels shipping content into the port of London. We will wait and see whether the airport comes with a development consent order, and we will judge that on its merits.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am old enough to have been there the last time this question was voted on. In the spirit of Gordon Brown and his tests over the euro, we applied tests of our own on capacity, carbon commitments, minimising noise and environmental impacts, and ensuring benefits for the whole UK. Can the Minister tell me whether those sensible tests still apply? Can he add another one, about costs to the public purse and deliverability, for my constituents, who will be the most affected? They want a better, not a bigger, Heathrow.

Rail Performance

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

To confirm, we are working with the trade unions at the moment on productivity improvements. We are clear that some of the practices in place on the railways are not acceptable or fit for modern and efficient railways. In the pay deal, there was a side letter and agreement to work through training improvements, and we want to ensure that that is delivered. The previous Government’s approach meant that they not only failed to deliver any workforce reform improvements, but presided over the longest industrial dispute in our railways’ history, costing the taxpayer and passengers hundreds of millions of pounds.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that cancellations are high in the publicly owned TOCs. That is a result not least of the fact that the ones that are in public ownership were already the worst performing, and we need to look at how they have improved under public ownership. The real benefits will be brought about under Great British Railways, when we will be truly able to integrate track and train and deliver those improvements. We will set out the schedule for bringing the private TOCs into public ownership once Royal Assent has been given to the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, but the right balance must be struck between performance and return for the taxpayer, because we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds in dividend payouts and management fees.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to mention the Access for All programme and accessibility, which has not been good enough under Network Rail. I am happy to write to him about specific stations in the programme.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Everyone is praising my right hon. Friend to the heavens now that High Speed 2 will end at Euston. She is welcome to Old Oak Common in my constituency any time to have a look-see at progress there. However, can she help to fix the daily delays that constituents are facing on Crossrail? West Ealing and Acton Main Line are getting a worse service than they were before all this. We want to build, build, build, but people in new homes need to be able to travel.

[Louise Haigh]

The day when everyone is praising me to the heavens on HS2 is one I look forward to. As my hon. Friend knows, brand-new Elizabeth line trains are on order; the Mayor of London was awarded a £485 million capital settlement in the Budget partly for those trains, which are being produced at Alstom in Derby. That will significantly reduce the overcrowding and delays that she talks about. The Department works with the Mayor of London very closely on addressing those delays.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of delays to planned rail reforms.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

15. What estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of delays to planned rail reforms.

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

The recent National Audit Office report was clear that we expect to spend £400 million on rail reform up to the end of March 2024, compared with initial plans to spend £1.2 billion. The report was also clear that we are forecasting £2 billion of total savings over the current spending review period, which is 77% of our original savings target.

[Huw Merriman]

At the heart of rail reform is integrating track and train. I am very pleased that the Transport Committee has taken on the role of being the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee for the draft Rail Reform Bill, and is now scrutinising that legislation. The cut-off date for evidence is next Wednesday, if the hon. Gentleman would like to put his suggestions forward. I hope that the Committee will complete its report by July; the Government will have two months to respond to the recommendations, and if we have cross-party support for an integrated rail body that brings track and train together, I hope we will be able to bring in legislation to that effect, and improve rail services for everyone.

[Dr Huq]

High Speed 2, with its out-of-control costs, is compounding local misery, because it is now set to close the vital artery of Old Oak Common Lane for four to five years. We only know that because it leaked out, which shows the Government’s disregard for community and transparency. What assurances can the Minister give about funding for the Euston leg, so that the world-class interchange that we were promised does not end up being the terminus, and so that my long-suffering residents do not pay the price of Government project mismanagement by being hemmed in until 2030 because they cannot get on their one access road to the outside?

[Huw Merriman]

An Old Oak Common terminus provides a great opportunity for regeneration in the area. I have visited a number of times, and I am committed to working with the community to minimise impacts. One of the ways that is being done is by ensuring that the spoil is removed by conveyor, rather than by lorry. We do seek to minimise the impact; we recognise that when new rail stations are built, there is an impact.

Turning to the hon. Lady’s concern about Euston, I have met our property developer partners Lendlease. Our aim is to deliver not just a station, but the largest public sector land deal in London, which will completely regenerate the area. It will deliver offices, jobs and homes, and will also provide the funding to deliver the station, not just for HS2 but for Network Rail. We are committed to ensuring that Network North delivers that station.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

If the hon. Gentleman had waited for a response to his written parliamentary question, which is coming later day, he would have noticed that 68 buses from the ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional areas—scheme are now on the road. He seems to have failed to realise that that is out of a total of 1,604 that are on the road, from out of the 4,233 that have been funded across the UK. He might want to ignore previous schemes, but it is very important that we look at schemes right across the country. On top of that, he asked how many had been ordered across the country: 2,464 have been ordered. We are making great progress towards the over 4,000 by the end of the Parliament. If he would like to provide some extra cash or outline a Labour policy that will do anything for bus users in this area, I would really love to hear it.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

7. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of ticket office closures on rail users.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

9. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of ticket office closures on rail users.

[Dr Huq]

Mr Speaker, you yourself said that this news has been most unwelcome for the elderly, disabled and blind. Was an impact equality assessment carried out? I am lucky that Sadiq Khan is keeping all my Transport for London stations open, but rail workers risked their lives for us all. They were not watching box sets of Bridgerton during covid. Can the Minister commit to saying there will be no redundancies?

[Huw Merriman]

Mr Speaker, I will come back to you with regards to Chorley station. I repeat: the aim of the train operators is to redeploy staff to where they can interact with all passengers, rather than just the one in 10 who purchase tickets from ticket offices. Some 99% of all transactions can now be completed online or at ticket machines. I will just repeat the point that the Labour Mayor of London seems to think that getting more staff out and helping more passengers is a good way to operate, because that is exactly how London Underground continues to operate, as well as other operators across the country, including the Tyne and Wear Metro.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I certainly will meet my hon. Friend. I thank him for his involvement in the project for the last couple of years and for making the case for Bradford. Bradford is our youngest city in terms of population age and our fifth largest in terms of regional authority area. We firmly believe that levelling up means delivering for Bradford, so I am happy to meet him and I am delighted that this Government are willing to look at and give that partnership working to Bradford.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

T5. Now that social distancing is over, will the Secretary of State look into restarting the pilot of demand responsive buses that Ealing and one other London borough—a Conservative-run borough—were undertaking before covid pulled the plug on them, as his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), said he would do before being shuffled off?

[Mr Holden]

I would be delighted to discuss these matters with TfL at our regular meetings. All the decisions in this space are devolved to Transport for London as part of a £6 billion package, and I would be delighted to discuss the matter with the Mayor or the commissioner for transport at my next meeting with them.

HS2: Revised Timetable and Budget

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I think I have already made clear, in answer to an earlier question, that the decision that the first HS2 trains would run from Old Oak Common to Birmingham was made following the Oakervee review; but I do not accept some of the hon. Gentleman’s other points. As I have said before, there are long-term ambitions to connect HS2 trains further north than Manchester, but, as things stand, we are planning for Manchester.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

May I say, as the Member of Parliament representing the fabled Old Oak Common station, that this is a huge slap in the face for my NW10 residents? They will have to put up with even more years of living on a building site, with the carrot that was dangled before them in the form of the promised fast route to Euston now gone as it becomes the terminus. Given the already rammed tube trains in the area and the fabled Old Oak Common Crossrail station that is supposed to be coming, will the Minister not provide extra funds for TfL to lessen the pain and absorb the overcrowding?

[Huw Merriman]

We have been giving plenty of funds to TfL in recent years. All I can say to the hon. Lady is that she will be very proud that her constituency has the best-connected and largest new railway station ever built in the UK. I have been there to see it, and I want to thank all those who are working on it: what is being done there is extraordinary. This station will regenerate the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I am amazed that she is not welcoming it.

Future of Rail

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Ealing and Acton would not be here without the railways. Both have stations underground, overground—not wombling free—east, west, south, broadway, common, central. They are in “that there London”, so people might be thinking, “You’re all right, Jack,” but I want to counter this misperception that has grown up around the Government’s levelling up rhetoric. It is in the suburbs of London that we feel this most acutely. Our trains are full and getting fuller, fares are rising faster than wages, and west London, the sub-region with Heathrow, is a key driver of our national economy, but it needs transport fit for purpose, not just to and from central London but between the suburban bits.

An obvious solution would be breathing life into the old Beeching line, the west London orbital. There is Ealing, the centre of west London, and to the north Brent Cross, with lots of jobs, and to the south, Brentford, but good luck to anyone trying to get between any of those three. There is the super-development opportunity area of Old Oak, which has promised 24,000 dwellings and jobs, jobs, jobs. Again, this proposal could link them all, but there is no chance in sight, because the Government will not commit long-term funding to TfL.

Instead, we have the ignominious situation of cap-in-hand, eleventh-hour settlements, being marched to the top of the hill and down again. We are pretty much the only capital city on earth—I am not counting Singapore—where there is no central Government subsidy. We need reliability, predictability and all those things. When the current Prime Minister was Mayor of London, he was bequeathed a load of goodies from his Labour predecessor: the bikes that bear his name, the TfL rail Overground—it used to be quite scary when it was the Silverlink; it is brilliant now—the DLR extension and bus investment. But for Sadiq Khan—bless his cotton socks—the cupboard is bare.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on securing the debate. I have been listening intently to what the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said about the finances for TfL. Does she agree that if the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport did not strike so often in London and bring the whole of London to a standstill, the TfL finances might be in a better position?

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman is falling into the Tory trope of union bashing. I am a proud trade unionist, and the unions are there to better the conditions of their members. We do not want exploitation, do we? Is he going to be shoving kids up chimneys next? I fear the track he is going down. This issue is a bit of a smoke screen. We need long-term funding and a dependable model for London, which we used to have. Every other London Mayor had that, but in 2016 George Osborne suddenly cut the support grant. I think that had something to do with the complexion of City Hall, but—[Interruption.] I am not going to give way, because I do not get any extra time.

With covid giving way to a cost of living crisis, what did we see from the Chancellor? A cut in fuel duty and a 3.8% rise in fares, and I am not counting that gimmicky video—that thing, whatever it was—about the 1% of journeys where someone can get a cheap fare, going to the right place on the right day. That is not going to affect any of my constituents.

Meanwhile, we can only marvel at what they are doing outre-Manche in the rest of Europe. Look at Austria’s climate ticket. In Germany, there is a €9 a month regional transport ticket. In this country, no one between 25 and 65, which is probably most of the people here, is eligible for a national railcard, which is available elsewhere. I urge the Minister to look at something like that.

In conclusion, the future of rail should include projects that complete vaguely on time. I have an Oyster card holder that says, “Crossrail—new for 2018”. Ha! The future of rail would have considerate construction. HS2 goes through my seat and has made life a misery for the residents of Wells House Road, NW10. The future of rail would also have a visionary Government that could think long term, rather than say, “It’s all Sadiq Khan’s fault,” any time a London MP stands up to say anything, when we know that our London Mayor is doing a fantastic job against the odds. The country cannot be levelled up by levelling down London. The new Piccadilly line trains, due in 2025, are being built in Yorkshire. Level up London and the whole country benefits. Let us get Ealing, Acton and Chiswick back on the rails. Now that’s what I really call levelling up.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Chris Loder, with three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)]

It is a privilege to respond to this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I start by thanking the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for securing this important debate on the future of the railways, and all hon. Members who have made contributions today.

As some hon. Members will know, the railways are close to my heart: both my paternal grandfathers worked on the railways, one in Wensleydale in North Yorkshire—for those who are not Yorkshire colleagues—and the other in County Durham. My dad was actually born in a railway cottage, so I like to think that I have a little railway heritage or railway stock in my blood.

I understand the importance of the industry and the magnificent railway heritage of this country. There is a lot to respond to in this debate. I will respond to as much as I can. It has been a very broad debate—a good debate—but there are some specific points that I want to cover, particularly the point about GBR HQ, which I will come to shortly.

The Government are committed to securing the heritage of our railways, now and in the future. Although I cannot comment today on specifics of the initiative in York, our plans for the future of rail will benefit the UK as a whole.

I will start with the Williams-Shapps plan for rail. The case for change has long been clear, and the need to move away from a model that delivered multiple franchise failures, falling passenger satisfaction, a timetable collapse, spiralling costs and a one in three chance of delays across the network. That is why we commissioned Keith Williams in 2018 to carry out the first root and branch review of the rail industry in a generation. Keith and his team identified six key problems facing our railways; I am sure hon. Members will be familiar with some of them.

The rail sector too often loses sight of its customers, both passengers and freight. It is missing opportunities to meet the needs of the communities it serves. It is fragmented, and accountabilities are not always clear. It lacks clear, strategic direction. It needs to become more productive and tackle long-term costs. It struggles to innovate and adapt.

The pandemic has only exacerbated those problems, with revenues down and costs up. The Government rightly stepped in with emergency financial support, from the start of the pandemic to the end of the previous financial year, spending almost £14 billion funding on passenger services. I also recognise the work of the industry in keeping services going through the pandemic. But that support cannot be open-ended and the need for change is greater than ever.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Williams-Shapps plan for rail, published in May 2021, set out the path towards a truly passenger-focused railway, underpinned by new contracts that prioritise punctual and reliable services, the rapid delivery of a ticketing revolution with new flexible and convenient tickets, and long-term proposals to build a modern, green and accessible rail network. We are confident that our ambitious programme for reform will address the problems that Keith identified and support recovery from the pandemic. To that end, we are now well on the way to the biggest transformation of the railways in three decades.

Central to our vision is the establishment of a new rail body, Great British Railways, which will provide a single familiar brand and strong unified leadership across the rail network. Once established, GBR will be responsible for delivering better value and flexible fares, and the punctual and reliable services that passengers deserve. Bringing ownership of the infrastructure, fares, timetables and planning of the network under one roof, it will bring today’s fragmented railways under a single point of operational accountability, ensuring that the focus is delivering for passengers and freight customers and encouraging integration across the system as a whole.

GBR will be a new organisation with a commercial mindset and strong customer focus. It will also have a different culture to the current infrastructure owner, Network Rail, and different incentives from the beginning. It will also be accountable to Ministers, ensuring that its focus is on providing value for the taxpayer, enabling innovation and delivering for passengers and freight customers.

[Dr Huq]

I am grateful for what the Minister is saying about the GB focus and the new thing coming. Will she look at the European examples that I mentioned? As a member of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I know that tourism is a big thing in this country. It is worrying that people land in London and cannot get to Manchester without its costing a three-figure sum. Can the Minister sort that out, too?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady is demonstrating the need for a railway system that is not fragmented, and highlighting the importance of the rail industry, not just for commuters and travel to work, but for the tourism sector and leisure.

Private businesses have always played a big role on the railway, originally as its creators, then as providers of passenger and freight serves, and suppliers and partners to Network Rail. Privatisation has been a success story for the rail network, with passenger numbers doubling in the 25 years before the pandemic, and passengers travelling more safely. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members might not like that, but numbers have doubled in 25 years. The private sector has invested billions into new, modern trains and the upgrading of stations.

Our reforms are about simplification—

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Trudy Harrison]

We will of course look into my right hon. Friend’s suggestion, but over the past two years we have provided over £1.7 billion in covid-related support to the bus sector. The recovery grant is worth more than £250 million to operators and local authorities, and has been supporting the sector as passenger numbers remain suppressed.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

T3. The fleet of turquoise-coloured buses—they were like a cross between a minibus and an Uber; called Slide buses—that were increasingly being seen on the streets of Ealing and Sutton just before covid abruptly had the plug pulled on them by social distancing. Can I ask the Government to reintroduce these immediately, as we are coming out of the crisis, as a way of combating excessive car dependency? Also, women liked them because they took them directly to their door—they were demand-responsive buses. Will the Secretary of State do this or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said, are we in Ealing exempt from levelling up these days?

[Grant Shapps]

If the hon. Lady is exempt from levelling up, we need to have a word with the Mayor of London about it, because transport in her constituency is run by him, of course. On a serious note, I am very interested in that scheme, and I will speak to her about it offline.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

We are very keen to ensure that the benefits of HS2 are delivered as affordably as possible, recognising the importance of valuing every single penny of taxpayers’ money. Leeds and the regional stakeholders have brought forward ambitious plans for regeneration around a new Leeds station. That is one of the many aspects that is being considered across Government by Ministers not just in this Department but in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Treasury ahead of making decisions on the integrated rail plan.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Local residents neighbouring the brand-new Old Oak Common station, which has so far cost £6.98 billion and rising, showed me last week how their east-west journeys by bus, buggy—you name it—have become impossible because they are living in a barbed wire-festooned dust bowl of a building site. Can we have an urgent visit from the HS2 Minister? It should not just be Conservative Members who get visits. I have been waiting for a long time; the last time I was promised one was when the Secretary of State’s name rhymed with “failing”.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I would be delighted to visit Old Oak Common again. It is the largest ever railway station built in a single stage. It is a 32-acre site, and it will offer the hon. Lady’s constituents unrivalled connectivity when it is open. I have visited in the past, and I will be keen to visit again and meet the hon. Lady.