Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I am pleased that the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill has returned to this House with only a small number of Government amendments. I am grateful to Members of both Houses for their engagement and constructive approach throughout the Bill’s passage. I wish to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for his skilful steering of this Bill through its initial stages. I also thank Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for his valuable support, and for leading the Bill so effectively through the other place. The Government brought forward six amendments, which were agreed to, and we are considering them today.

Lords amendments 1 to 3 ensure that the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only when the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the United Kingdom. Throughout the passage of the Bill in the Lords, peers provided thoughtful and collaborative suggestions on this topic, and I am grateful to them. The amendments to clause 1 provide that sustainable aviation fuel is to be regarded as “UK-produced” where any part of the process for converting feedstocks into fuel occurs within the UK. These amendments give the industry a clear and confident signal of support, and align with our intended objective for this Bill: the objective of supporting the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel industry.

Lords amendments 4 to 6 require the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Governments before making regulations under the powers in clauses 1, 3, 10 or 11. This ensures that devolved Governments are fully engaged on matters in their areas of competence.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the leadership that the Government are taking on this important industry. How much sustainable aviation fuel does my hon. Friend anticipate that the UK will be able to provide, and after his amendments have gone through, is it still likely that we will depend on imports of sustainable aviation fuel, alongside the stocks we have in the UK?

[Keir Mather]

To meet the provisions of the SAF mandate, we believe it will be necessary to have a mixture of sustainable aviation fuel produced in the United Kingdom and SAF imported from overseas. However, the Bill creates a revenue certainty mechanism—the first of its kind—to drive this nascent market to increase SAF production. We believe that the mechanism will demonstrably increase the amount of UK-produced SAF in the system, and will have an impact on the production of the good, skilled jobs in our energy industry that we all care about so much. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that we believe that the Bill is the right process to go through to stimulate this industry, and to give investors the certainty that they need that the UK Government stand four-square behind the creation of sustainable aviation fuel in this country.

Clause 1(8) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations extending the period in which they can direct the counterparty to enter into contracts by up to five years at a time. Clause 3(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the counterparty to maintain a register of information on revenue certainty contracts, and to publish details about the contracts. Clause 10(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require the counterparty to pay a surplus to levy payers, and require levy payers to pass on the benefits of that surplus to their customers. Clause 11(4) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations amending financial penalties to reflect inflation, and to specify the basis on which a company’s turnover is to be determined for the purpose of those penalties. The amendments do not affect the delivery of the Bill or its underlying policy intent, and final decisions in relation to the regulation-making powers in the Bill will continue to rest with the Secretary of State for Transport.

The Government’s objective is to implement the revenue certainty mechanism for the SAF industry effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom and to work collaboratively with the devolved Governments to do so. I am grateful for the engagement on the Bill from across the devolved Governments and pleased to confirm that we have obtained legislative consent from all three devolved Governments. I therefore commend all six amendments to the House and urge Members to support them.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not have asked for a better birthday treat than to debate this issue with the Minister and with everyone else who has shown such a huge interest in the Bill this afternoon.

When the Bill first came before the House, the Conservatives were clear that we support the innovation that underpins sustainable aviation fuel. Aviation matters enormously to this country: for families, for trade, for connectivity and for our standing as a global hub. The challenge has never been whether to decarbonise aviation, but how we do so without damaging competitiveness or pricing ordinary passengers out of flying.

From the very beginning, we set a clear test. If the British public are underwriting a revenue certainty mechanism, whether directly or through levies that will inevitably feed into ticket prices, the economic benefit must remain here in the United Kingdom. That was not an afterthought. It was not something we discovered halfway through the Bill’s passage; it was one of the central arguments we advanced from day one. Throughout Committee and on Report, I pressed Ministers on how the contracts would work in practice. How would domestic production be prioritised? How would we prevent a scenario where fuel was largely produced overseas, given minimal processing here and then rebadged as British simply to qualify for support? Without clarity, that risk was real.

My noble Friend Lord Grayling brought that concern into sharp focus in the other place. His amendment made the principle explicit: if sustainable aviation fuel is to receive support under a revenue certainty contract, it must genuinely be British. He made the point clearly: we cannot design a system that can be gamed. We cannot allow mostly complete fuel to be shipped here, polished up a bit, and then presented as a domestic product. That would not be an industrial strategy; it would be box-ticking with a Union Jack on it.

What has happened since? The Government tabled Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4, restricting revenue certainty contracts to UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel. That principle was not explicit in the Bill, as introduced. It is explicit now and I genuinely welcome that. That change, however, did not appear out of thin air. It followed sustained pressure from those of us on the Conservative Benches here and in the other place. It was Conservatives who identified the gap, made the case and tabled the original amendments. I am grateful that the Government have now listened and moved.

Of course, the detail matters. The definition of “UK-produced” refers to any part of the process of converting feedstock into fuel taking place in the United Kingdom. That must not become a loophole wide enough to taxi an A380 through. The intention is clear: real production, real value added and real jobs here. We will ensure that the practical application reflects that intention.

There is also a broader point to the amendments, which speaks to capability. The United Kingdom has genuine strengths in synthetic fuel and e-SAF. We have companies demonstrating 100% synthetic flight, developed right here in the United Kingdom. We have world-class engineers and researchers. We have the technical expertise to lead. What we should not have are British passengers ultimately bearing the costs while overseas producers capture the opportunity.

Now is not the time to relitigate the plus or minus £1.50 on fares argument we had in previous stages, but for the record I say that the Opposition are watching closely. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are assured that the non-HEFA—non-hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—requirements contained in the mandate will be met by industry at no more than the same cost to the passenger?

[Mr Perkins]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I wish him a happy birthday. I am interested in what he has to say. I think the Government have to be given some credit for bringing forward this signal that pushes the industry, in terms of both support for it to produce here in the UK and the mandate. Will he clarify whether he supports the SAF mandate as currently legislated for, or is he saying that he supports only it if it will not lead to any additional cost?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind birthday wishes. We do support the SAF mandate. We do support the decarbonisation of air travel, as well as other means of travel, but it has to be done in a way that is economically viable not just to the industry but to all of us who ultimately pay to fly—or to go on a train or a ship, or whatever it might be—through the fares we pay. That is why the Opposition have been so laser-focused on the direct impacts on fare payers, as well as on the wider industry.

The wider point, to return to the Lords amendments we are debating, is to ensure that the economic value of decarbonisation, which the British state is mandating through the legislation we pass in this Parliament, actually benefits British producers, British researchers, British engineers, and the incredible array of innovators and talent we have here in this country.

With these amendments, the Bill is closer to meeting the test we established at the beginning of the first debate: that the sustainable aviation fuel policy the Government are pushing should reduce emissions while reinforcing the UK’s industrial base, safeguarding competitiveness and supporting high-skilled employment across the country. Indeed, our position remains clear: environmental responsibility, along with economic realism. That will be what protects competitiveness. We will continue to scrutinise the framework carefully as it develops, but on the fundamental point that British passengers’ money should back British production, the Government have adopted the Conservative position. Perhaps if they listen to us a little more often, they might find the turbulence a great deal lighter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Even taking into account the Lords amendments, we continue to welcome steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. I repeat the Liberal Democrat point from Second Reading that SAF is just one step in that direction; in the longer term, it needs to complement rather than detract from investment in zero-carbon flight technology.

I thank the Government for their engagement in the other place and for bringing forward these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness Pidgeon for her work and advocacy to strengthen the Bill. To that end, the Liberal Democrats support all the amendments. We support Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which will help to provide revenue certainty that can relate only to UK-produced aviation fuel, and Lords amendments 4 and 5, which will simplify industry consultation requirements, while noting the way in which Lords amendment 6 will bring in an overarching consultation requirement. We support the duty placed on the Secretary of State through Lords amendment 6 to consult before making regulations under the Act, including its focus on consultation and engagement with the devolved Administrations, which, of course, is always important.

With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I only regret that I lack the skill of the shadow Minister in making aviation puns.

[Mr Perkins]

I warmly welcome the Bill, which will boost home-grown production of sustainable aviation fuel. I also welcome the work done on the Bill in the other place and believe the amendments strengthen it. My hon. Friend the Minister should be heartened by the fact that the amendments he presents today are not being lambasted from all sides; instead, everyone seeks to claim credit for them, which is a nice place for him to be. The Conservatives, characteristically, have added this matter to the list of things they are now calling for but did not do during their 14 years in power. None the less, I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).

[Greg Smith]

rose—

[Mr Perkins]

I will happily give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene on his birthday.

[Greg Smith]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is correct that we did not pass the legislation during our time in government. No Government can do everything during their time in power. As we are having a fair debate here, will he at least accept that an enormous amount of work was done by the previous Government, which led to this Government being able to bring forward this Bill so quickly in the first Session of this Parliament?

[Mr Perkins]

I can neither confirm nor deny what the hon. Gentleman says. Frankly, I am not certain about that—he may well be right. I was not seeking to create great division on this, although I do think my general point remains. None the less, as I say, I thank him for what he has said and for his support for the Bill. We have plenty of things to argue about; let us not dance on the head of a pin in this area where we are all agreed.

The Government are clearly committed to greater aviation expansion. The recent work of my Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, has demonstrated that it is possible to achieve the Government’s ambitions to have that growth while protecting nature and the environment. However, the Committee has also demonstrated that that is not by any means inevitable, and that sustainable aviation fuel is one aspect that must play a growing role alongside a suite of other measures if the Government are to reduce carbon emissions from aviation while driving that passenger and economic growth. It is absolutely crucial that the Government take action not just on sustainable aviation fuel, but on the many other elements that will be necessary both to keep the Government’s promise and to keep them out of the courts and from being judicially reviewed. It is important that this is one of a number of measures.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the need for a suite of measures to deliver the Bill’s objectives and the overall reduction in fossil fuel usage by the aviation sector. One of the means of doing that is to massively ramp up green hydrogen production, which will have to happen over a number of years. I am sure that the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), whom I have seen bobbing, will no doubt point to that. A quick way to kick-start that marketplace and boost sustainable aviation fuel would be to increase the amount of hydrogen that can be injected into the gas grid to 20%. The evidence is there to say that it would work. It would act as a massive kick-start for the industry. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point—it is definitely something worth considering.

The Government have given an important commitment to meet their climate change and environmental targets at the same time as expanding airports and growing the economy, and I welcome that commitment. It is a hugely important promise, but it is also a huge challenge. Sustainable aviation fuel can deliver emissions savings compared with traditional kerosene fuel. Increasing its use is a vital piece of the puzzle in decarbonising aviation.

The revenue certainty mechanism introduced in the Bill will provide the minimum price guarantee for producers of SAF in the UK, so whoever was responsible for it, I welcome these amendments. The price certainty will encourage investor confidence in bringing commercial-scale SAF plans to the UK and bringing SAF production and jobs. Alongside that revenue certainty mechanism, the Government have introduced a SAF mandate: a legal obligation on fuel suppliers to the UK to provide an increasing proportion of SAF to airlines. That policy is also essential to driving the uptake of SAF.

What assessment has the Minister made of when these SAF mandates will be achieved? Does he think that they will be achieved in the next year? If not, at what point does he expect those mandates to be met? The Government do not believe that we need to follow the advice of the Climate Change Committee and see demand management alongside a suite of other measures as one of the approaches. Instead, they believe that we can get greater amounts of sustainable aviation fuel. Will my hon. Friend tell me how important it is to see the industry achieving these early mandates if we want to give confidence that they will be achieved in much greater numbers in the future?

Despite these welcome policies, the Environmental Audit Committee heard evidence—I think the Minister confirmed that today—that the UK would not be able to provide sufficient SAF to service the level that the Government expect the industry to use. We know that imported SAF is not currently recognised in UK carbon budgets as being a genuine reduction in emissions. Although I understand the Government have plans to include international aviation emissions within their carbon calculations, the UK has yet to formally legislate to include those emissions within the carbon budgets, despite both this and the previous Government agreeing to do so. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will prioritise parliamentary time to introduce the necessary legislation to formally include international aviation emissions within the UK carbon budgets?

The Environmental Audit Committee also heard evidence from the Whittle Laboratory at Cambridge University that, while moving to 25% of fuel usage to SAF would offer substantial emissions reductions, the reductions become much less certain beyond that point, because moving towards SAF could push up its price when compared with other sectors. That could lead to the potential of reduced availability of feedstocks for other sectors and a move beyond utilising waste products towards having to grow and cut down crops purely to serve the aviation sector. Therefore, if we go beyond 25% and start aiming for 50%, 60% and 70%, the certainty of this being an environmental and carbon reduction becomes much less certain. I wonder what assessment my hon. Friend has made of that research and whether he has visited the Whittle Laboratory. I also had the opportunity to listen to its modelling on this, so I wonder what he made of it.

Finally, will the Minister reassure me that he will not allow SAF production from feedstocks, potentially undermining the environmental sustainability and the emissions savings of SAF? Has he had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy, Security and Net Zero around the likely needs for the very same stock as part of our energy production in the future, particularly given the potential growth of data centres? Does the Government have a collective approach on the need for both sustainable aviation fuel and biofuels servicing our energy sector? With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will bring my comments to a close.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Marvellous. I call Chris Vince.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

The two promoters that remain in the scheme will be responsible for securing private investment, and they have expressed to me confidence that the scheme can go forward. I also gently point out to the hon. Lady that there is huge support for this expansion among the business community: the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce all support Heathrow expansion, as do regional business groups across the UK.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Environmental Audit Committee has just completed its very detailed work on aviation expansion, which we will announce soon. One thing that came across was that the Climate Change Committee was advising demand management as one of the ways that it should be delivered, consistent with our environmental commitments. I am glad that the Secretary of State has reaffirmed that the expansion will have to be consistent with those commitments, but can she tell us whether demand management will be part of that? What assessment has she made of the aspects that will require Government policy rather than being within Heathrow’s gift, such as the expansion of sustainable aviation fuel? Finally, I am glad to hear that she recognises that this is a 21st-century plan with 20th-century road links and 19th-century rail links, so can she tell us more about how she will reduce the overall carbon emissions contribution that Heathrow makes?

[Heidi Alexander]

There were probably three questions in one there. I say to my hon. Friend that I am not prepared to stand in the way of the public’s aspiration to fly. We are not looking at demand management at the moment; our approach to aviation decarbonisation is based on the analysis suggesting that the sector can make a significant contribution to our economy-wide net zero target by 2050 by focusing on new fuels and new technologies.

Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I can confirm to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that smaller and micro manufacturers are exempt from the ZEV mandate, but they will need to comply with the 2035 complete phase-out date, as per all other manufacturers.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I hope the rest of the shadow Secretary of State’s birthday is rather better than the last half hour; I do not think his contribution today will age very well at all. The measures the Government are proposing are a sensible compromise. The industry did need certainty. There were real concerns about that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and other Derbyshire MPs heard on a recent visit to Toyota, so the measures absolutely strike the right balance. What can the Secretary of State say to my constituents who live in either council flats or terraced properties, which makes home charging more difficult, about what more we can do to ensure they are not faced with a huge price disparity in comparison to those who are able to have charging infrastructure at home?

[Heidi Alexander]

We issued guidance to local authorities before Christmas on cross-pavement solutions, and we are offering a grant of up to £350 for households with on-street parking. I hope those two things together will offer some comfort to my hon. Friend’s constituents who are in the situations he describes.

Airport Expansion

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

There is no DCO currently. If one comes forward, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will make his voice heard.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for repeating what we heard from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero at the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday: that no plans will be approved unless they are in line with the Government’s environmental commitments.

My hon. Friend cannot comment on Gatwick and Luton because they have a live DCO, and he cannot comment on Heathrow because it does not have a live DCO, which is handy. Let me ask him about something that he can comment on. What changes will we make to ensure that any airport expansion plans are in line with our environmental commitments? Can he explain more about what the offsets will be to ensure that the Government are able to meet the commitments that he has confirmed they will make?

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend for his chairmanship of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I was a proud member for many years, looking at the circular economy, which this Government are taking forward. The Government have committed to delivering greener transport, including through SAF, airspace modernisation and the other measures that I laid out. I am proud of that range of measures. The Front-Bench across this Department are decarbonising the transport sector further and faster in the first six months of this Government than in 14 years of the last.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend is right in his estimation of the dates. A decision will be made in a matter of months, and certainly by the summer. I am very happy to sit down and have a discussion. I will be visiting the site very shortly.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

People across Chesterfield were delighted when the long-standing campaign for the Staveley regeneration route was given the thumbs up by the Government, but were then sent into despair when Derbyshire County Council said it did not have the funds to provide its small contribution towards it. Will the Secretary of State update us on whether it will be delivered? What concerns does he have about the fact that the poverty of local government sometimes gets in the way of money that his Department has allocated?

[Guy Opperman]

I have looked into this particular scheme and met other colleagues in the House about it. I will write to the hon. Gentleman in detail. I am sure we can continue with the project.

Refurbishing Trains: Contracts

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Lady is correct: that is vital. The challenge, and it is a good challenge, is that we now have four manufacturers, and we need to help them with international orders. That is why I sometimes go abroad with trade envoys from those companies to export around the globe. The average age of our rolling stock is down to just under 17 years—six years ago, it was 20 years—and as it gets fresher, there is a challenge with pipelines as well. However, we are bringing contracts forward so that we can fill the order book better.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

As a Derbyshire Member of Parliament, I can tell the Minister that there is huge concern about the future of Alstom. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that the Government have lacked strategic direction on rail. They have gone from one project to another, and in the last few years there has been no sense of an industrial strategy. When we have had these debates in the past, Ministers were always blaming the EU and saying we could not support British manufacturing because of the EU. We are now out of the EU, and it seems to me that countries such as Germany are much better at supporting their manufacturing. Can we have a real sense of urgency from the Minister and an indication that the Government are going to make sure, strategically, that these jobs are saved?

[Huw Merriman]

I assure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State in particular has been meeting Alstom, and our officials and our director general meet Alstom, including with representatives. I will be doing so on Tuesday week. We will do everything we can to assist, but this is a commercial matter for the operator. As I have mentioned, I have been to that plant with the Transport Committee and seen what it does for the workforce and for the supply chain. We will be doing everything we can to assist Alstom in keeping that plant open.

HS2: Revised Timetable and Budget

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I am glad my right hon. Friend mentioned Old Oak Common, because following the Oakervee review, that was anticipated to be the station where services would commence from 2033. Despite what may have been said, it is interesting to look at what we are doing with Old Oak Common. It will be the best connected and largest new railway station ever built in the UK. It will have 14 platforms and be one of the busiest railway stations in the country, with access to central London and Heathrow via the Elizabeth line, and connections to Wales and the south-east. Importantly, it will also allow us to deliver trains to Manchester in one hour and 11 minutes, which is 54 minutes quicker than at present. That demonstrates that the whole country benefits from Old Oak Common.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We all look forward to seeing more detail about the note that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) spoke about, but the least surprising thing she said was that the Government already know that these delays do not save money; they cost money. The increase in the cost of HS2 from £32 billion when the Government took power in 2010 to at least £71 billion, and escalating all the time, is precisely because of the delays and incompetence that the Government have shown, and their lack of commitment to HS2 over 13 years. My constituents in Chesterfield want HS2 to come, and we are desperate for the eastern leg. Will the Government acknowledge that what they are announcing today is a further increase in the cost of the project, and the further undermining of a crucial infrastructure project that the whole of the north demands?

[Huw Merriman]

As well as investing in the future, which we are doing, we must cover ourselves for the present. That is why three of the Prime Minister’s five priorities are to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt. The reality for a project such as HS2 is that we have had to rephase one of the elements by two years, and that the remainder will go ahead as we outlined previously. It is vital for any Government to take into account the current state of the economy, current spending requirements and the impact they have on inflation, and the cost of borrowing. I am proud to be part of a Government who take a balanced responsibility between investing in infrastructure for the future—and we absolutely are—and managing the day-to-day finances, which the Opposition are demonstrating they are not doing.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)]

Before I begin, I first welcome the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) to her place and congratulate her. She will be the third shadow Transport Secretary I have faced across this Dispatch Box, and I wish her all the luck of the previous two.

We were elected as a reforming Government. We have undertaken the biggest ever review of the industry and published the Williams-Shapps plan, creating a new public body in Great British Railways, with an overwhelming aim to deliver trains on time for passengers. We began by reversing the Beeching cuts, restoring lines to communities that were cut off from the railway in the 1960s and 1970s. We have set out our integrated rail plan, a £96 billion programme to reshape our railways in the north and the midlands. It is the largest single rail investment ever made by any UK Government.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State described this as a reforming Government, but what they are reforming is their manifesto after they have been elected on it. People in Chesterfield and across north Derbyshire were promised HS2, which would increase capacity. Instead, what we have got are slower services and years and years of delays while the reforms happen.

[Grant Shapps]

Our manifesto talks about the Oakervee review. The hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Chesterfield will be served by a new line to the east midlands completing the electrification of the midland main line, which I will come on to shortly.

Our reforming vision marks a new era of investment and growth. The integrated rail plan starts to provide benefits to passengers and communities quickly, rather than leaving it for two decades as previously planned. We will boost eight of the 10 busiest rail corridors across the north and the midlands. We will speed up journeys, increase capacity and run more frequent services, and we will do all that much earlier than previously planned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

I am challenged that that is not what he said, but I have the quote. He said that the original plan would

“deliver maximum disruption and minimal benefit.”

In fact, he was campaigning against HS2 going north of Birmingham until Northern Powerhouse Rail was built.

Many towns and villages that would not have benefited originally will now benefit from this approach. Labour Members need to explain to people in places such as Kettering, Leicester, Loughborough, Doncaster, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Wakefield why they want to take away from them the services that our integrated rail plan will deliver.

Mayor Burnham had more to say on the subject. Just last year he claimed that the 2040s were far too long to wait for high-speed rail in the north. Perhaps that is why he was prepared to sacrifice HS2 north of Birmingham to focus exclusively on Northern Powerhouse Rail.

[Mr Perkins]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Grant Shapps]

I want to get to the end and let others come in.

This Government are not going for either/or, as the Mayor of Manchester tried to persuade us to; we are going to deliver both—high-speed trains up to Leeds while building a brand-new high-speed line east-west between Liverpool, Manchester and West Yorkshire, with a total of 110 miles of new high-speed line and 180 miles of newly electrified line, all of it in the midlands and the north.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ben Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. Nottinghamshire’s package is indeed huge and we are very proud of it. It is absolutely right to say that Nottinghamshire is one of the most benefitted places, if that is correct English—it is probably not—from the entire plan. The bulk of that £12.8 billion will connect Nottingham to Birmingham, reducing that journey time to less than half an hour. That will bring the whole of the west midlands into commutable distance for much of Nottingham and south Nottinghamshire, changing the lives of all sorts of people across our county, because it will draw in a whole new swathe of businesses and opportunities for people across the region.

Government have listened to us throughout this discussion. We have heard from Opposition Members about things being cancelled and scrapped, but when we have engaged constructively with the Government and Ministers on this, they have recognised our local priorities and delivered for us. We all understand the need and the wish to connect cities, and connecting Nottingham and Derby to Birmingham is really important. However, when we spoke with Ministers and officials, they understood the economic priorities for the region and the county, the importance of Toton as a hub for job creation and what was said about local residents being able to access jobs. They listened and included that in the plan. I am very grateful for the understanding and really positive engagement that we have had with Government. That is the part that provides the levelling up for my constituents.

[Mr Perkins]

I am rather confused by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. On 30 September, he and the leader of Leeds City Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to say that levelling up would

“fall at the first hurdle”

without HS2. Less than three months later, the hon. Gentleman is back here saying that he welcomes these plans, which many of us in the midlands and the north see as an utter betrayal.

[Ben Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that I have always petitioned Government for the greatest possible investment in our region. I have always said that HS2 was important, and I continue to believe that that is the case. That is why I am delighted that we are getting a new HS2 connection from Birmingham to Nottingham and that it delivers on the Toton priority that we have been pushing as a county and as a region. And it is why I will continue to push Government over the next 18 months to make sure that we get that certainty between the east midlands and Sheffield, so that we get those journey times and the connectivity. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has said many times, many of my residents would rather see a local connection that they can use to access jobs and economic growth, rather than a fast train that flies past their town. Government have listened to our priorities and I am very grateful for that.

The Toton part is what is important for my Mansfield constituents, because it will allow them to get on a new train line—the Maid Marian line or the Robin Hood line that will go through my constituency—that will link Warsop in my constituency to the rail network for the first time in about 50 years, and it will allow them to get a direct train to thousands of new jobs. There will be a new hub for economic growth at Toton and there is already significant interest in investment in that. It will benefit the county and help us to join together the economies of the east midlands, in Derby and Nottingham, and that will be hugely beneficial for the levelling-up agenda.

For me, levelling up means, in short, providing better quality jobs to residents who do not have access to them and making sure that those communities have the skills and transport links to be able to access them and improve their life chances. That is key, and it is a long-term goal. The IRP commits and supports that goal absolutely, because it provides the economic epicentre for us as a county and connects the most disadvantaged communities to it, so I welcome that.

If I have one ask from Government, it is that the IRP also commits to introducing and accelerating a development vehicle for the east midlands—our east midlands development corporation. That is absolutely key to the delivery of those outcomes at Toton and to the rail connections that surround it. We need specifics on that, a process, funding and a way of bringing that in to accelerate growth, so that we can get improved delivery times, which the Minister mentioned.

I absolutely welcome the review, the integrated rail plan and this debate. Notts MPs are here in force to support the plan because it is hugely beneficial to our county and our constituencies, so I commend the Government for bringing it forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Conservative Governments have made me angry before. Indeed, it was the Thatcher Government who first awoke my passion for politics, because I wanted to stand against everything that they stood for, but at least the Thatcher Government were competent. What we have now is a Government who are so incompetent, so inept, so irresponsible and so dishonest that they constantly let down the people who voted for them, and that is what we see in this plan for integrated rail.

We need only look at the manifesto promises that we have had from the Tory Government—all the way back to 2010, when I was first elected and the hon. Member for Ashfield was working for a Labour MP—to see what the Tories have been all about. Throughout that time, we have seen manifestos promising that HS2 would be delivered. We saw those promises in 2010 and we saw them in 2015, and the Tories were also promising to electrify the midland main line in 2017. In 2019 they promised that they would listen to the Oakervee review, a detailed review of HS2, the costs of which were escalating because of the constant delays and ineptitude of this Government in implementing it.

For 11 years HS2 has been Tory party policy, but throughout that period they have managed the policy so ineptly that the costs have continually escalated, and public confidence has not been there. Now they are asking how we can support policies that they spent four general elections and 11 years telling us were the right policies. They stand there and say that this is a major investment, but every major investment in rail that they have announced in the 11 years for which I have been here has never been delivered. They have stood there and announced midland main line electrification, and they have never delivered it. They have stood there and announced HS2, and they have never delivered it. So why on earth should anyone believe that the plan that is on that desk, which will take many years and future Parliaments to be delivered, will ever happen?

The people of Chesterfield have been lied to, and people across the midlands and the north have been lied to, in order to get this shabby Government elected. It is no wonder that people throughout my constituency are finally starting to see what this Government really stand for. It makes me sick, Mr Deputy Speaker.

East to West Chesterfield Cycle Route

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking in the debate, in line with guidance from the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to take a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate, and this can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering or leaving the room.

I will call Toby Perkins to move the motion and the Minister to respond. As I am sure they both know, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered East to West Chesterfield cycle route.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

I welcome the Government scheme that will help towns such as Chesterfield to develop new cycling infrastructure. I am very much in favour of creating a strong cycling and walking network in Chesterfield and encouraging cycling across the country. I would not want anyone to characterise my contribution to this debate as being anti-cycling or as being a dispute between cyclists and motorists.

It may surprise you, Mr Davies, that I am an occasional cyclist myself, and many of my constituents will have seen me whizzing past them down the hills, or agonisingly plodding up them. In Chesterfield we have better cycling infrastructure than most towns of our size, but I support Derbyshire County Council’s restlessness to improve that infrastructure. I am very aware of the limitations of our current network.

Many positive benefits come from further investment in cycling and walking, which can transform our communities. Cycling and walking are great for physical health, for mental health and for our communities. Being able to get out and about means that people can actively participate and engage with their community, which helps to address social isolation and loneliness. Having more people cycling and walking will also do wonders for our local shops and town centres. People who are on foot or bike are less likely to travel as far and are more likely to shop local.

At a time when the high street is under pressure and local shops are closing, we should be cognisant of the powerful rejuvenating effect that both cycling and walking can have on the backbone of our economy. In the week following the start of COP26, when the whole world comes together to discuss how we can combat climate change, we need to acknowledge the environmental benefits of cycling.

This does not mean that we should blindly support each and every project, or that new cycling infrastructure does not need a proper consultation process, which is what people are concerned about when it comes to the east to west Chesterfield cycle route. The controversy surrounds two aspects of the plan. To the east, without any consultation, the council closed Crow Lane, an extremely steep hill that links the Riverside estate with Brimington Common, in May 2020. Initially for an 18-month period, the council now plans to make the closure permanent. This proposal was part of Chesterfield Royal Hospital’s plan to encourage people to cycle to work. One of the critics’ key objections to the plan is that closing Crow Lane adds to the traffic on the A632, which is exceptionally busy and is the only route to Chesterfield Royal Hospital. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was driving up the A632 on a Friday and had to pull over, with traffic stood still in both directions, as an ambulance attempted to wind its way down this busy road in an emergency. That is a common situation.

To the west, the proposal is to narrow the extremely busy A619, which links Chesterfield with Bakewell. It is the main road to Manchester and, particularly in the summer, is thronged with visitors to nearby Chatsworth House. We always encourage people to visit our beautiful town and to avail themselves of the Peak district and wonderful Chatsworth. We want visitors to linger in our town centre, not in a traffic jam on the A619. It is important that we do not have proposals that only add traffic to an already fairly congested road.

I have been contacted by countless residents, those who have been most affected by the proposed route, who did not receive any consultation letter or information leaflet from Derbyshire County Council inviting them to give their views. Residents living on the roads off Chatsworth Road, where the biggest impact of the route will be, and many of the people in the Brimington Common area, who are affected by the ongoing closure of Crow Lane, have reported to me that they have had no contact from the council.

I wrote to residents last week, when I secured this debate, to ask whether they had been consulted. Within 24 hours of receiving that letter, 70 residents had already come back to me. Those opposing the scheme outweighed those who supported it by a ratio of about two and a half to one. It is by no means a universal opinion—there are many people who support the route—but in all the consultations I have done, there is a majority against.

In June 2020, along with Stuart Brittain, the then councillor for Brimington, I sent a survey to residents of Crow Lane. We received 283 responses, 63% opposing any closure and 27% supporting it. In response to the letter that I sent last week, both constituents who supported the route and those who opposed it told me that they had never received a consultation letter. Those concerns cannot be dismissed as just disgruntled people unhappy with the suggested route. Even those who support the route say they have never been consulted on it.

The lack of contact from the county council has resulted in my constituents feeling that the proposals are being forced through, while excluding the views of the people who will have to live with their impact. The county council claims that 4,000 letters were sent out and that a small number of people responded, with a majority in support. It is implausible that 700 people should sign a petition against it; that 283 people in Brimington Common alone should respond to my survey, the details of which I sent to the county council; that 70 people should respond with 24 hours of receiving my letter this week; yet only small numbers responded to a consultation that the county council claims to have conducted.

I am sure the Minister agrees that a consultation that fails to hear the views of the people most affected should not be considered legitimate. It feels to me and many of my constituents as if the council made the decision on the route that it wanted and gerrymandered the consultation to match the decision it had already made. That means that alternative routes and legitimate concerns about the current proposals have been wilfully ignored.

Before I go into more detail about the merits of the individual decision, it is relevant to discuss the politics, in the hope that it might make the Minister think twice about it. The east-west cycle route was an issue in the Derbyshire County Council elections in 2021. It pains me to inform you, Mr Davies, that the 2021 Derbyshire County Council elections were a considerable success for the Conservative party, which ended the election with eight more councillors than it started with.

The main variation to that Tory success was in Chesterfield, specifically in the divisions attached to the cycle route. We went into the elections with the two wards most affected having one Labour county councillor representing them and one Conservative county councillor. The Labour councillor in Brimington was elected but the Conservative councillor was not, I think uniquely among Conservative councillors. Both publicly and privately, he has blamed this ill-conceived cycle route for his defeat, and I share his view on that.

I also share the view of local councillors such as Councillor Dean Collins in Brimington that Derbyshire County Council had been provided with better options than using Crow Lane to the east or Chatsworth Road to the west. On that western route, a cross-country path from Somersall to Holymoorside has been in the pipeline for many years and still makes the most sense, in reducing the impact on residents and providing a much more pleasant rural and safer cycling route. The only obstacle to that route was landowners who required clarity about liability for prosecution and upkeep of the route. The county council seems to have used those legitimate concerns as a rather flimsy excuse to scrap the more rural and sympathetic route and instead pursue the idea of narrowing the A619.

Alternative routes have been suggested to the east, which would mean that Crow Lane could be reopened. The route could use the far less developed Dark Lane, instead of Crow Lane, which would help to cut commuting times for my constituents in Brimington and reduce traffic on other heavily congested roads.

The proposed scheme could have an adverse effect on emissions in Chesterfield. The closure of Crow Lane has forced cars on to busier roads such as the A632 which, as I mentioned, serves the Royal Hospital, as well as affecting people wishing to travel to Bolsover and other districts to the east. The road is already blighted by slow-moving traffic. The narrowing of Chatsworth Road is likely to cause traffic to become heavily congested, with the potential for large heavy goods vehicles having difficulty passing one another on that road. I fear that the gains made from encouraging more people on to their bikes could be undermined by the added traffic jams, which would mean that cars remain on Chesterfield roads for far longer than before.

Chatsworth Road is one of the busiest roads in Chesterfield. It is the primary route between the M1 and Manchester for those travelling between the south and the north-west of England. It has a significant amount of HGV and commercial traffic, and is vital for Chesterfield businesses. On Chatsworth Road, as is standard with many urban A and B roads, hatched-line medians are in place to improve safety. These enable vehicles to move towards the median, away from emerging traffic, to overtake parked vehicles more easily and maintain a better distance from the pavement, and they aid safe right-hand turns. The proposals put forward by Derbyshire County Council will see the median removed and the available road narrowed. With such large vehicles using Chatsworth Road, I am concerned that these measures will make it considerably more dangerous.

The plans also reduce the number of pedestrian crossings and they do not extend across the proposed cycle path, creating an additional risk to pedestrians. I share the concerns of many constituents regarding the danger and the traffic congestion that will be created at the junctions along Chatsworth Road. These problems would be avoided with the proposed route through Holymoorside to Somersall Park. I am anxious about supporting any scheme that has the potential to increase the risk to pedestrians, cyclists and all other road users. The county council needs to listen to constituents and provide answers to their concerns. We need a plan that is right for Chesterfield, not just one that meets the funding criteria decided in Whitehall.

The residents who have contacted me are generally people who are very much in favour of improving our cycling infrastructure, but they have genuine concerns about the safety of the proposed route along Chatsworth Road, the ongoing unfair disruption caused by the Crow Lane closure, and they worry that the plans will lead to more congested roads.

The closure of Crow Lane, which the council wishes to make permanent, has been handled in a completely unacceptable fashion, which has led to widespread anger among constituents in the Brimington Common area and in Calow in the Bolsover constituency. Those constituents now have longer commutes to work, spend more time sitting in traffic and have added difficulties on the school run. The closure of the road was initially proposed during the first lockdown; we were informed that it would be for three weeks. It was a measure that I supported to help staff in the heat of the pandemic to be able to cycle to work and avoid public transport when travelling to work. I have to say that cycling up Crow Lane to the back entrance of Chesterfield Royal Hospital is not for the faint-hearted—it is a very steep hill. When surveys have been done, there are very small numbers of Royal Hospital staff cycling to work. Without any consultation or communication with residents, Crow Lane’s three-week closure turned into an 18-month closure and it now appears it is going to be made permanent.

The voices of residents and the representations from local councillors and me have been completely ignored, and the closure has remained in place without any real discussion. We have seen the same disregard for local representatives in the county council’s consultation. The county council emailed me to ask about my availability for a meeting to discuss the cycle path proposals. My office provided details about my availability, but instead the county council picked a date when I was out of the country. We contacted the county council again to make it clear that an alternative date would be needed. The local ward councillors—including the leader of Chesterfield Borough Council, Councillor Tricia Gilby, who is a huge supporter of cycling—and the local county councillors also made it clear that an alternative date was needed. There was plenty of time for an alternative date to be found, but the county council went ahead with the meeting, entirely disregarding local representatives. That feels like a deliberate attempt to silence the voice of local people.

I therefore call on Derbyshire County Council to pause their plans and re-engage with residents in the affected areas, so that their views are heard and fully considered. I have also raised a complaint with the local government ombudsman regarding the consultation and the decision-making process. I would appreciate the Minister’s views on this situation and his saying whether or not he is satisfied that a scheme funded by his Department is going ahead without the views of local residents being heard, apparently with a deliberate attempt to diminish the voices of those who oppose it. Does the Department for Transport have any guidelines for local authorities on the minimum standards required for the consultation process, in order that they can access funding from the Department’s scheme, and will the Minister investigate to see whether Derbyshire County Council’s consultation adheres to those minimum standards?

Three years ago, I pressed the Department for Transport to provide ring-fenced funding for local authorities for cycling and walking infrastructure, so of course I welcome any such funding that we can secure in Chesterfield. However, I am absolutely determined that such funding should not be set up so that projects are designed to fit centrally developed criteria, rather than being based on what cycling infrastructure is best for an individual town and its people.

It has been suggested that the funding that the Government have brought forward in this respect would not be available for a rural scheme and is only available for urban schemes. If that is the case, I would be interested to hear from the Minister why that is so.

Would either the Minister or his colleague—the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who is responsible for cycling infrastructure and who, I understand, was unable to attend this debate; he very kindly contacted me to say that he already had a commitment to be in Saudi Arabia—be willing to meet me to discuss the funding scheme, the current proposals and whether other routes would qualify for funding, as well as the question that I have asked about the consultation process?

In conclusion, I do not want this debate to become one that pits cyclists against motorists, because the majority of my constituents who have contacted me support cycling infrastructure; they just have concerns about this particular route. Unfortunately, however, Derbyshire County Council’s approach has polarised opinion and left many of my constituents feeling ignored and disenfranchised.

With every major planning decision, there will always be people who remain opposed to it and remain angry, but if a proper consultation process has been followed, with every view given equal weighting, then at least people know that the process has been fair. I do not believe that Derbyshire County Council’s process has involved a fair consultation. That is a failure of process and of democracy, so I urge the Minister to do whatever he can to ensure that Derbyshire County Council pauses its plans and undertakes a proper consultation with my constituents. After that consultation, if DCC still presses ahead with its proposals, that will be fair enough, but at least the people of Chesterfield, particularly those most affected by these proposals, will have had their views fully heard and considered.