Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his excellent maiden speech and his commitment to sustainability and rail, which is music to many of our ears in this House. I look forward to working with him in the months and years to come.

As we have heard today, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill aims to encourage investment in sustainable aviation fuel in the UK by creating a mechanism to guarantee a certain level of revenue. The Bill provides for a guaranteed strike price, guaranteeing price for a producer selling SAF over a defined period. The GSP will be funded via a levy on the aviation industry, specifically through a variable levy on all aviation fuel suppliers over a set period. This legislation should help the industry meet its requirements under the SAF mandate, introduced in January this year, which specifies that at least 10% of all jet fuel used in flights taking off from the UK from 2030 must be made with sustainable fuel, rising to 22% by 2040. This is clearly an area where the UK is trying to lead the way in decarbonising the aviation sector.

However, it should be noted that aviation, with all its benefits in connecting people and businesses, was responsible for almost 30 million tonnes of CO₂ in 2022, equivalent to about 7% of the UK’s total emissions. As I understand it, even as emissions from other sectors decline, aviation’s share is projected to rise to 16% by 2035. This is not compatible with our net-zero targets. Sustainable aviation fuel is not a silver bullet, but it is a step forward to help us in the challenging environment that other noble Lords have described.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome these steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. However, we see SAF as just the first step; we want it to offer a real low-carbon alternative. We believe that the Government should set out how they will go beyond securing investment in SAF and ensure that, longer term, this measure complements rather than detracts from investment in zero-carbon flight technology. We want to see greater innovation, research and development to make the UK the world leader in zero-carbon flight. SAF should be a springboard for that objective rather than a final destination, helping the UK transition to truly climate-friendly options such as battery-electric platforms and hydrogen-fuelled models as these technologies develop. There is a lack of clarity about what level of zero-carbon flight the Government are aiming for, if any, so perhaps the Minister can advise.

It is hard to square an objective of net-zero aviation by 2050 without measures alongside SAF to cut emissions and make climate-friendly flight a reality, and it is hard to look at the decarbonisation of fuel use in aviation while this Government seem intent on expanding airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow, to name just two, leading to many more flights.

There are a number of areas that we will be probing further in Committee. There are some concerns about the levy and the need to ensure that there are no loopholes, that progress is monitored and published and that we are aligned with our European and global neighbours or even ahead of them. Looking at international examples, the EU’s ReFuelEU aviation regulation requires a minimum blend of 2% SAF in 2025, rising to 70% by 2050; it focuses far more on both fuel suppliers and airlines; and, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, it is considering its own revenue support mechanism. Singapore and Thailand’s mandates started a 1% blend in 2026. Japan and South Korea are considering mandates starting some way off, in 2027 and 2030. In China, there is a SAF mandate at 2% that increases to 15% by 2030. Elsewhere, India and Brazil are considering SAF mandates. In the US, while there is no mandate, there is government support, as we have heard, to boost production, in the form of tax credits and other incentives. While there is no consensus on the route map for sustainable aviation fuel and how to support its growth, in developing this mechanism, what international examples have the Government considered to help shape their approach and the Bill before us today?

The levy on fuel producers is not necessarily the wrong approach, but key details are missing and could have unintended consequences if regulations are poorly designed. Leaving the mechanism to be determined later provides useful flexibility for a new and emerging industry. However, assurances are needed on how the mechanism will be designed. One issue that has been raised by industry and by other noble Lords today is that the levy is based on historical market share, which could cause problems. It is not clear if new market entrants might avoid paying the levy if they have no prior market share. Perhaps the Minister can clarify.

Another important issue I have picked up from talking to producers such as Neste is that, although industry in general supports the creation of a revenue certainty mechanism as a means to strengthen investor confidence and unlock the significant investments required for SAF production, there is concern that a level playing field would be guaranteed internationally. There is a strong feeling that revenues of the levy should not be used to support production of SAF that is subsequently exported. This should be about developing and supporting our own UK industry and needs. The levy should be focused on ensuring SAF supply at an affordable price within the UK. Since the UK and EU SAF mandates, I understand that we have seen an increase in the cost of SAF. This mechanism should help with the supply of SAF within the UK and help to ensure a stable price.

I have also been talking to operators that use SAF, for example DHL. In 2024, DHL used 73,000 tonnes of SAF in its own fleet, which is 3.5% of their total fuel share. This is in addition to investing in its fleet to decarbonise and in its ground-handling equipment to move to fully electric. We need to ensure that all operators are looking to decarbonise their whole operations and are not just relying on SAF to tick the green box, in effect.

A final issue that has come up in discussions and been raised by many noble Lords today, including my noble friend Lord Russell, is a concern that the levy will filter down and potentially cost passengers and airlines significantly. Can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have carried out and assure the House that passengers will not be significantly penalised? The combination of a long-term mandate and the proposed revenue support mechanism clearly offers a high degree of regulatory certainty, which is crucial for attracting the significant capital investment needed for SAF production in the UK. I hope the Minister can reassure us on the important points raised today and as we move forward to Committee.

South Western Railway

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I do not need to join the noble Lord on his service, because I am on my own, from Richmond to Vauxhall. It is true that there are some short forms—the result of both the driver shortage and the failure to put the new trains into service. Those are linked, because it is clear that the previous management did not choose to put the trains into service because they would have had to train the drivers. There are 780 drivers to be trained on those trains, and getting them into service means withdrawing 20, 30 or 40 of them from what they do normally. Meanwhile, the trains that are used are falling to pieces. Those are the old red ones, as anybody who has travelled on them will know, and they are best used in their last journey to the scrapyard in Newport, South Wales. They will be gone by December. It takes time to fix things. They were not being fixed under the previous regime, and they are now.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I acknowledge that there have been serious infrastructure issues, some natural and some legacy, but that does not take away from the poor service provided on the longer-distance services. When will passengers on South Western services be able to buy a cup of tea on board, and to reserve seats for their journeys, which is what many would consider to be a basic standard?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is referring to the London to Exeter service, which has not been very good in recent months, although the timetable will be reinstated from 29 November. That is because there was a serious problem with soil moisture deficit, as we have had the driest spring since 1836—and that was not due to public ownership. She also refers to the refreshment trolleys. She may know that I have asked the managing director to see what he can do to put back the refreshment trolleys, which were withdrawn some time under previous Governments—after Covid, I think.

Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to simplify marine equipment legislation by consolidating and combining regulatory changes into one piece of legislation, providing greater clarity for industry. The regulations also bring the standards and requirements for ballast water management systems within scope, introduce a new “equivalents” provision and remove government ships from the scope of the legislative regime. Noble Lords will wish to know that the draft regulations have been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; no response has been received from either committee.

In line with international requirements for ships to carry safety and counterpollution equipment—collectively referred to as “marine equipment”—that has been approved by the ship’s flag administration, the UK implemented the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016, which gave effect to the EU directive on marine equipment. Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, the 2016 regulations were amended in 2019 to ensure that they would continue to operate effectively. Amendments were also made by the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) (Amendment) (UK and US Mutual Recognition Agreement) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which gave effect to the UK-US mutual recognition agreement on marine equipment by providing for the mutual recognition of certificates of conformity for designated marine equipment, thus opening up the large US market to UK manufacturers.

These proposed regulations will revoke and replace the 2016 regulations and both sets of 2019 amending regulations. The proposed regulations, which are considered non-controversial, set out the United Kingdom conformity assessment system for marine equipment placed on ships registered in the United Kingdom.

Since the UK’s departure from the European Union, numerous engagements have been undertaken with stakeholders, including UK-approved bodies, which are responsible for the approval of marine equipment, manufacturers, other government departments and maritime trade organisations. These provided an opportunity to influence the direction that the policy has taken. Once the policy direction had been developed, a six-week public consultation was carried out, during which responders expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the MCA—published a consultation report, including responses to comments received.

The proposed regulations also make other changes. First, they bring the approval of ballast water management systems into scope. In 2022, the UK implemented new International Maritime Organization requirements and standards for ballast water management systems through the Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022. These regulations included the approval requirements for those systems. Bringing ballast water management systems within the scope of the proposed regulations will make it easier for industry to find and adhere to the relevant requirements. It will also prevent divergence in the approval processes between these systems and other items of marine equipment.

Secondly, the regulations introduce an equivalence provision to allow, subject to certain conditions, non-UK approved marine equipment to be placed on board UK vessels in situations where UK-approved items are unavailable or unsuitable. The conditions ensure that the equipment, when placed on board, will provide an equivalent level of safety.

Thirdly, the regulations will remove government ships from the scope of the marine equipment regime. This is due to the broader change in approach to government ships, triggered in part by the limited legislative powers available post our exit from the European Union. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and in the absence of appropriate powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the existing instrument is being revoked using the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. This will facilitate the amendment of these regulations in future, if required.

In conclusion, I have set out the purpose and scope of these regulations, which consolidate and simplify the UK’s marine equipment regime, bringing clarity and confidence to the industry. The regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards while tailoring the legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU exit context. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as has been set out, this instrument aims to simplify marine equipment regulations and provide clarity for industry. I am grateful for the briefing from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency earlier this week. Conventions require ships to carry safety equipment and counter-pollution equipment, which will meet certain standards. As we have heard, through the 2016 regulations, which were amended in 2019 following our exit from the EU, this SI will consolidate those regulations into a single instrument, which we support. They also concern the removal of government ships—that was clarified to me earlier this week—which are covered by defence maritime regulations.

However, I will raise the process and the time taken to get to what we are considering today. Having read the comments of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee regarding the related Merchant Shipping (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which I am sure will be before the House soon, the timing of these regulations—on which the committee did not comment specifically—needs further explanation. Can the Minister confirm when the consultation on today’s regulations took place? Why have these two sets of regulations not come at the same time, given that they are both about consolidation and review? When can we expect the replacement fees regulations to be introduced?

Given that we were here only last week looking at the instrument on railway car parks, which seemed to take an awfully long time to get here—over five years had passed since the consultation on the matter—and the regulations before us today were last updated some six years ago, what assurance can the Minister provide that the department will start to work at pace through a lot of the administration around these regulations, to ensure more timely consideration by this Committee? I await the Minister’s response with interest.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a briefing for me by members of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Department for Transport, which was extremely helpful. The issues underlying this wholly uncontroversial instrument were debated in the other place, and the official Conservative view in support of the instrument was made clear there. It is very rare that one has the opportunity with any Government, least of all this one, to be able to say, “Well done. Carry on”, but that is my message.

Road Injuries and Deaths

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am sure the first thing to say is that your Lordships’ House will join me in offering our condolences to my noble friend on the loss of his brother. The road safety strategy will be comprehensive, covering all road users. Measures being considered include improving enforcement, the better use of vehicle data and modern technology, targeted measures for vulnerable road users, including motorcyclists, who are 1% of traffic but, sadly, 21% of fatalities and 20% of casualties, and changes to motoring offences.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, clearly our thoughts are with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and his family, for the sad loss he outlined in his question. As we heard, over 1,600 people die and around 30,000 more are seriously injured on UK roads every year, but this is not inevitable and we should not accept it as inevitable. As the Government develop their new road safety strategy, will they be guided by the internationally recognised safe system principles, which are grounded in harm reduction?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that that international system is a good guide. We recently discussed it in this House during the passage of what is now the Bus Services Act. I can confirm that the Government intend to use that guidance, because it is internationally recognised and successful.

Airport Expansion

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. The sustainable aviation fuel mandate, which is already in force, seeks to reduce aviation emissions by up to 2.7 of a unit that I cannot describe—it is called MtCO₂e, if anyone here knows what it is; I am sure someone does—in 2030 and by up to 6.3 in 2040. A lot of work is going on, and the House will shortly debate the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, which seeks to increase manufacturers’ sustainable aviation fuel. Together with the investment I already discussed for the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, this will all contribute to a future sustainable aviation industry.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

The Lib Dem Benches next.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, what specific work are the Government undertaking to understand the emissions not only from aircraft but from the surface-access and freight traffic associated with airport expansion? How can the Government meet net-zero commitments while supporting airport expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Previous Questions in this House have dealt with the construction of the third runway in relation to carbon. The Government expect those two schemes, which are being taken forward, to demonstrate how carbon reduction applies not only to the construction of the runway itself but to the freight traffic and surface transport implications of the third runway. Those factors will be taken into account. There is no reason for the expansion of Gatwick—and, for that matter, of Stansted and Luton—to be incompatible with that of Heathrow. Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport and deserves to be of a size that can increase economic growth for the whole country.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to extend Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which I shall refer to as the POFA to save time. This will ensure that the recovery of unpaid parking charges on railway land is enforced consistently with other private car parks and has the relevant safeguards provided for users of those car parks, including an independent appeals service. It will also ensure consistency in the regimes applying in railway car parks across the railway network through the extension of this order to cover England and Wales.

Noble Lords will wish to know that, after the draft order was laid on 8 September, it was formally cleared by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its Thirty-fifth Report of Session 2024-26. Likewise, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee formally cleared the draft order as an instrument but named this amendment as an instrument of interest to the House in its 36th Report of Session 2024-26. Prior to this, my department had responded to preliminary inquiries from the committee’s clerk.

The background to the draft order is that railway operators currently use a combination of enforcement regimes to recover unpaid parking charges at railway station car parks, resulting in inconsistency and complexity for operators and passengers. Some operators rely on criminal enforcement set out in the Railway Byelaws, while others use agents who rely on contractual agreements with motorists. With the introduction of Great British Railways, my department expects a consistent level of service to be offered across the network to passengers. Therefore, the order will bring car parks located on railway land within England and Wales into the scope of the same civil enforcement regime that applies to all other car parks on private land.

Previously, railway station car parks were excluded from the POFA because they were subject to the Railway Byelaws, which meant unpaid parking charges could be enforced only under those by-laws. The POFA made a number of changes to the law related to parking on private land. It bans vehicle immobilisation and/or removal without lawful authority and provides private landholders with additional powers to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges, providing certain conditions are met. Schedule 4 to the POFA facilitates the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle parked in a private car park. It sets out detailed requirements regarding the provision of notices and the appeals process. However, as I have said, railway station car parks are currently excluded from this regime.

The change which this order enables will ensure a consistent civil enforcement regime for all railway station car parks across the future Great British Railways network. It will ensure that passengers have the same protection that they would have when parking in other car parks on private land, including access to an independent appeals service. An industry consultation showed support for amending the Railway Byelaws to remove criminal liability for parking breaches and instead using the civil enforcement regime set out under the POFA regime.

These changes will standardise the approach to the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle parked in railway station car parks. To support this order, changes to the Railway Byelaws will be made at the same time to remove the criminal enforcement regime which is currently in place and allow this amendment to take effect. This shift from the criminal enforcement regime to the civil regime provides passengers with an independent appeals service and allows the same framework to apply to railway station car parks as applies to all other private car parks.

I have highlighted the importance of this order to ensure that passengers have access to a consistent civil enforcement regime when recovering unpaid parking charges on railway land and an independent appeals service. I therefore beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I am pleased to speak in the debate about this amendment order. As the Minister has set out, the order amends the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to bring land subject to the Railway Byelaws within the definition of relevant land to facilitate the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle parked in a station car park. This will bring simplicity. It brings railway car parks into line with other car parks, which will allow private parking operators to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle rather than just the driver for unpaid parking charges, which has been an anomaly for some time.

The consultation on this matter was launched in 2020, so I ask the Minister why it has taken over five years for this small order to appear before the House. It seems uncontroversial, and over five years seems a long time. I know that signage costs were one concern raised in the consultation, but the background note explains that budget provisions have been made to cover this, so that should not be a reason for the delay.

In principle, we welcome this rather technical change and the fact that a consultation took place. However, as anyone who has been an MP or an elected member of a council or an assembly knows, parking and parking fines are always controversial. MPs and councillors receive much casework expressing frustrations and problems with many car parking operators and providers, who often lack transparency and are unaccountable; they can sometimes seem unreasonable. Clear and new signage that is accessible is welcome, but what is the timescale for implementing the new code for private car park operators, which has been consulted on recently?

The public need to have confidence in the overall regulatory framework covering private car parking providers to ensure they have greater transparency and consistency, that they are not being unfairly penalised and that they have that forum for appeals when things have gone wrong. Will the Minister ensure that resources are in place so that operators comply with the forthcoming code, particularly regarding signage, fair changes and independent appeals?

Finally, I understand the Government’s assessment that a statutory review of these regulations was judged disproportionate. However, will the Minister commit to revisiting that decision if there is evidence of unforeseen consequences for operators or users of the relevant land from this order? I await the Minister’s response with interest.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument seeks to amend the Protection of Freedoms Act. The moment one sees a Labour Government fiddling with our freedoms, one is naturally anxious as to what they have in mind. That Act was one of the great achievements of the coalition Government—in fact, it was a Liberal Democrat-inspired achievement—from those happy days when the country was run by a quad of David, George, Nick and the red-headed guy, whoever that was, but now it is being amended, so one looks very carefully at what is proposed. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, it is much less dramatic than it might be and it is, in essence, to do with enforcement at railway station car parks.

However, I have some questions. I am interested in the thinking and timing behind this order, particularly in how it fits with the proposed architecture of the rail reform Bill, which was published for the first time last week and is, therefore, now available to us so that we can scrutinise the Government’s plans for railway reform.

The basic position is that car parks at railway stations are currently covered by railway by-laws. What is wrong with that? It turns out that the by-laws are unsatisfactory in some respects. So it was open to the Government to come to this House with a view to amending the railway by-laws that govern station car parks—keeping it all within the railway family, if you like—but that is not in fact what they have done. The Department for Transport has not taken us down that track; instead, it is, in effect, outsourcing the whole matter to an MHCLG code of conduct. How does that fit with our plans for a single directing mind for railway infrastructure?

The department is also doing this at a very strange time because, again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, pointed out, the Government are in the process of consulting on a new code for the private enforcement of car parking. I believe that the consultation closed only in September, which is very recently. Of course, it is too early for MHCLG to have finished its consideration of that consultation or to have issued its plans for the future, so we do not know what we are actually being invited to impose on drivers who are parking their vehicles in railway station car parks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, complained, quite rightly, that it has taken five years since the consultation was undertaken to bring this order forward. My complaint is that, now that it is coming forward, it is being done in a very rushed manner when, given where we are with the consultation on the code of conduct, it would be a great deal more sensible if the instrument were to wait until we knew what that code of conduct said. Indeed, one would have thought that the train operating companies currently being absorbed into the Department for Transport—that is, the train operating companies or Great British Railways, which is going to replace them—will want to know as much as I do about what the enforcement regime will look like, once the new code of practice is in place, before they relinquish their powers under statutory by-laws, which, as I understand it, the Minister can extinguish without reference to Parliament.

In general, if the Government want to do this, the Official Opposition will not stand in their way, I think, but this seems to me to be a very strange thing for the Government to want to do just at the time when they are putting in place a single directing mind covering all rail infrastructure—in effect, handing this over to a statutory structure that will be dominated by a parking code of practice which was issued by a different government department and which is not even available to us at the time when the Department for Transport is relinquishing these powers.

Heathrow Airport: Third Runway

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The launch of the Airports National Policy Statement review on 22 October is one of the significant steps that the Government are taking to support the expansion of Heathrow. The review has begun before final scheme selection to allow early policy and analytical work. Public consultation will, of course, take place. Round tables with key stakeholders will be held during the review and consultation phases. The further DCO process afterwards will include statutory consultation and public examination.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, given the significant congestion already around Heathrow Airport and the impact on local communities, will the Government be making improved public transport access a condition of any plans for Heathrow expansion, in particular for southern and western rail links?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that, on Monday evening in this House, we discussed the Statement made in another place on Heathrow. She is right—I said so then, and I will say so again—that the public transport links to and from Heathrow must be a critical feature of any proposals put forward by any promoter. There are, as she mentions, schemes for southern and western access. The Elizabeth Line has significantly improved connectivity to the airport since it opened, and we await promoters’ proposals for public transport links to the airport.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement does two things: it announces a review of the Airports National Policy Statement, but gives us little idea in detail as to how it is to be revised, and it tells us that the only two credible proposals for Heathrow’s expansion are still being considered and that the more fanciful proposals have been dismissed. The two are linked because the core purpose of the current ANPS is to facilitate the expansion of Heathrow. In my view, the timing of the Statement is nakedly intended to persuade the OBR that the project is real and deliverable. I wish to test that.

First, there is the question of delivery of a revised ANPS, which I must say I think Ministers are rather reckless to embark on. The current Airports National Policy Statement was produced under the premiership of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead and expressly favoured the expansion of Heathrow. It survived scrutiny in the High Court and was appealed to the Court of Appeal by environmental groups on no fewer than 17 grounds of challenge and fell on a single one—the legal meaning of the word “policy”. On that arcane question the whole statement fell. By then, the Government were in the hands of Mr Johnson, who was perfectly content with that outcome. But Heathrow took up the cudgels, and the case went to the Supreme Court, which restored the ANPS.

The timeline tells its own story. In 2015, the Airports Commission recommended a third runway. In 2018, Parliament approved it by 415 votes to 119, yet only by December 2020 did the Supreme Court clear the legal path for Heathrow to proceed—five years ago. Now, in October 2025, Ministers tell us rather recklessly that the policy is going to be revised and accelerated and we are going to go through the whole process again, with all the potential challenges involved. It is a brave or reckless Government who set out on this course.

The Government have an answer to this. In the Statement, the Secretary of State says:

“On judicial reviews, we have announced that we will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects”.


At present, the average time for such reviews stands at roughly 1.4 years. What is the Government’s target? How long do the Government expect it to take for the new airports national policy statement to be approved? Remember, it is the Chancellor’s ambition that this runway should open in 2035, with spades in the ground many years before that, given how much muck has to be moved in order to embrace Heathrow’s plans. I am indeed making the simplifying assumption—it may not be true—that the Heathrow proposal is the one eventually chosen by the Government in November and not the alternative scheme. I may be wrong about that, but I think my assumption is reasonable and, for the moment, simplifying. That gives us five years.

Meanwhile, public debate on the whole thing has been minimal, because we have very little information about the proposals. The projected cost of Heathrow expansion stands at £49 billion. The market value of Heathrow Airport, which we know from the last time its shares traded last year, is around £9.5 billion, even though its regulated asset base is closer to £20 billion. People are willing to pay £9.5 billion for something which has a regulated asset base of £20 billion, and they are then proposing that, despite the fact that it is heavily leveraged, much more so than it was 10 years ago when it was discussing this project, we have to reckon with the fact that it wants to spend at least £49 billion—that is the publicly quoted figure; it may be more by now—on a third runway to increase capacity by 50%. My second question is whether this is credibly financeable and whether the Government believe that it is.

However, the airlines do not trust Heathrow, because they are expected to pay in advance off the regulated asset base. In fact, they are paying already, because the CAA has approved that some of the costs that Heathrow incurs can already be charged to the airlines and thus to the flying passengers. They think that because Heathrow is incentivised by the current regime to make its expenditure as high as possible, it is untrustworthy. They point to various things, such as a new baggage system completed in 2016, which was priced at £234 million but ended up costing £435 million, and a cargo tunnel with a budget of £44.9 million that ended up with an estimated cost of £197 million. They point, in contrast to Heathrow’s plan to spend £49 billion on a single runway, to terminals at Barcelona, Frankfurt, Madrid and Munich, that all cost half or less when taking the size of the terminals into account; the fact that Changi is expected to create a new terminal for £8 billion; and that New York’s JFK will open its new Terminal 1 in 2026, the centrepiece of a £15 billion transformation that will be completed by 2030.

What are the Government going to do about Heathrow and its regulatory structures? They say that they are going to change them. The Statement says:

“The Government will therefore work with the Civil Aviation Authority to review the framework for economic regulation for capacity expansion at Heathrow, ensuring the model provides strong incentives for cost-effective delivery”.


What has the Civil Aviation Authority, the regulator, been doing for the last 20 years in that case, if it has not been ensuring firm delivery? So my third question is: what are the Government going to do about that?

I plan to speak for eight minutes.

There is also the matter of noise, which I would like to pursue at some stage, but not at the moment. With that, I will sit down, but I believe that the Government have a lot to do to show that this project is credible, and that they are not contributing to its fast delivery by revising the airports national policy statement at this stage.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate on the review of the airports national policy statement and the Government’s announcement regarding Heathrow. But let me be very clear that the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that expansion of Heathrow would be a mistake from the Government and deliver a blow to our net-zero commitments.

A reliable and safe transport system is vital for economic prosperity in all parts of the country, and improving transport is essential to combat climate change and air pollution, but we must ensure that new infrastructure supports the UK’s climate targets. Analysis from the New Economics Foundation suggests that approving the expansion of Heathrow Airport would cancel out the climate benefit of the Government’s clean power plan within five years, and expansion of Gatwick and Luton Airports would cancel out the climate benefit of the CPP by 2050, so the Government’s sudden support for airport expansion just does not stack up.

Ed Miliband, speaking at the Environmental Audit Committee on 27 January this year, said:

“Any aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets … If it cannot be justified it will not go ahead”.


Will the Minister confirm that the four new tests—the evidence-led approach set out by the Secretary of State—will have to be met in their entirety before this Government will give the green light to Heathrow expansion? Will the Government publish the metrics for each of these four new tests so that there is transparency in the assessment? Will the Minister confirm that they will not proceed with Heathrow expansion if the Climate Change Committee advises that the plans do not meet legal obligations on climate change, including net-zero or air-quality obligations?

Let us look at noise pollution. It is a really big issue. Around 700,000 people are impacted currently by noise from Heathrow. It is not just those who are living in places such as Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Surrey—around the airport site. In places such as Lambeth and Southwark, residents have the clash of Heathrow flights and City Airport flights throughout the day, causing serious nuisance. The CAA workbook has highlighted that the number of those who are overflown could double to 1.5 million under some Heathrow expansion plans. Noise is an issue which many people feel has escaped any meaningful legal control for too long, leaving overflown communities exposed to excessive noise, impacting their health and quality of life. As part of this work, will the Government adopt the World Health Organization’s recommended noise levels to address noise pollution from the operations of Heathrow Airport?

I come to the point about surface access. While we do not want to see expansion and we do not believe it stacks up economically or environmentally, the last thing the area needs is an airport expansion plan that does not address and fund fully surface transport to the airport. It is a problem now and, therefore, higher modal share for public transport must be a foundation block for the Government’s assessment. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s commitment to fully funded surface transport access as part of this work? As part of the assessment of the two options, will the Government ensure that surface rail access, including the southern and western rail links, are an integral part? Will the Government consider the future of the premium Heathrow Express line as part of its surface access assessment, and when will this be published?

I pick up particularly these points around rail surface access because the letter from the Secretary of State in June stressed

“surface access mode share targets, including elements of a surface access strategy”

and went on to talk about it covering

“public transport, and active travel”.

Yet in the letter that was published last week, on 22 October, under the heading “Surface access”, it states:

“To minimise unnecessary disruption, please provide additional information regarding the construction of road schemes”.


Rail seems to have been downgraded. I really want some assurance from the Minister today.

In an attempt to demonstrate growth, the Government are misguided in thinking that an expanded Heathrow can deliver for the whole country. There are many other schemes that would deliver a lot more for communities across the country. We do not support Heathrow expansion and will closely monitor every stage of this process to ensure that local communities are heard loudly and clearly.

Drink-Drive Limit

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Earl is certainly right that the Scottish Government changed the limit. I cannot confirm his analysis of the results. Of course, in determining a new road safety strategy, the Government will not only take evidence but look at what has happened as a consequence of different levels. Whatever he thinks the effect is—and it is a consequence of both penalties and enforcement—the Government will think carefully and act decisively.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, drug-driving, as well as drink-driving, is deadly. What work are the Government carrying out to look at international developments in roadside detection devices to collect evidence on wider drug misuse while driving, such as the inhalation of nitrous oxide?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a strong point. Drug-driving is as lethal as drink-driving. She will know that there has been some recent publicity about that particular method of drug-driving in London. I am confident that the police and enforcement authorities are working their way through that particular episode. The Government are looking carefully at all the methods of enforcement for driving under the influence of a variety of different drugs.

Open Access Rail Services

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am surprised that the noble Lord does not know the answer to that, as one of the many former Secretaries of State for Transport in the Chamber. The answer is that there are protected freight paths on all the main lines that are likely to carry freight, in order that freight operators can respond to short-term demand measures—which they do frequently, changing trains on a daily and weekly basis—and have room for expansion. It is important that they are left to do that. Otherwise, there is no chance of freight expansion and the commercial freight businesses would be damaged.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, under the new world of Great British Railways, will the Government allow existing open access operators to continue their current routes beyond the permissions granted by the ORR, even with a new charging regime?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has a good point. The regulator necessarily needs to give a successful open access application sufficient time to recover the significant costs of rolling stock. Many of these arrangements run for at least 10 years, and it would not be right to curtail those activities. Serious investment has been carried out to allow them. What happens in the future we can debate during the passage of the railways Bill, but for the moment those open access operations that have 10-year or similar periodicity will continue.