Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker, further to his Written Answer on 1 July (HL8639), why it was not possible for the fence mounted onto the existing bi-steel barriers to match the design of that around Cromwell Green, divided into barrier-length sections as necessary, given that any fence mounted onto the barriers is inherently removeable.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The chosen design option was endorsed on the balance of all considerations, including security, heritage, deliverability, and value for money. It was also a factor that the permission for the ‘siting of a boundary fence’ is temporary and was granted for ten years.
The Abingdon Street Fence has a height, pale dimensions, and pale spacing consistent with other Fences elsewhere on the Parliamentary Estate.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what action they are taking against those responsible for Network Rail mistakenly cutting down 300 trees in Derbyshire.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
The government is not taking action against Network Rail for trees removed on the Midland Main Line between Wingfield and Clay Cross. All the vegetation managed in this area was to ensure the safe operation of trains on the track. Any trees within 6.5m of the line and any capable of falling within 4m of the track were either removed or reduced in size. Dead, dying and diseased trees (some with the fungal infection Ash Dieback), as well as healthy trees which were obstructing the view of train conductors and drivers, were cut back or managed due to the risk they posed to the safe operation of the railway. This was done in line with Network Rail’s tree risk assessment model.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what chemicals Network Rail use to prevent regrowth from the stumps of trees or bushes they have cut down.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
Network Rail currently uses chemicals to prevent tree regrowth as well as other methods such as coppicing. Network Rail is also trialling grazing on a number of parts of the network to manage vegetation. The chemicals Network Rail uses on the rail estate for vegetation management are included in the table below.
| Location | Application method | Description | Active Ingredient 1 |
Non- water source protection area sites | On track | Handheld equipment | Total weed control – vegetation management of grasses and broadleaf weed species | Diflufenican Glyphosate Flazasulfuron Sulfosulfuron Flumioxazin |
Selective weed control – vegetation management of broadleaf weed species | 2,4-D Amine Triclopyr 2 Dicamba Glyphosate Max plugs 3 | |||
Rail mounted equipment | Total weed control – vegetation management of grasses and broadleaf weed species | Diflufenican Glyphosate Flazasulfuron Sulfosulfuron | ||
Flail strip and off track areas | Rail mounted and handheld equipment | Selective weed control – for vegetation control | Citronella Oil 2,4-D Amine Aminopyralid 4 Fluroxypyr MCPA Triclopyr 2 Dicamba Mecoprop P Glyphosate Max plugs 3 Glyphosate 5 | |
Identified water source protection area sites (unless identified as no spray) | On track | Handheld equipment | Total weed control – vegetation management of broadleaf weed species | Citronella Oil Glyphosate |
Selective weed control – vegetation management of broadleaf weed species | see note 1 | |||
Rail mounted equipment | Total weed control – vegetation management of grasses and broadleaf weed species | Glyphosate | ||
Flail strip and off track areas | Rail mounted & handheld equipment | Selective weed control – for vegetation control | Glyphosate 5 | |
Extra vulnerable water source protection area sites | No use of any herbicide is permissible unless prior permission and site-specific assessment has been agreed by all parties. An AqHerb01 Form is available from the Environment Agency to initiate this process. In Scotland herbicides can be applied near water to control invasive non-native species (INNS) under general binding rule 23 of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2022. Application of herbicide near water to control non-INNS requires a registration under the same regulations to be applied for, an application form is available from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. | |||
Notes: 1 Any active ingredient not listed requires prior permission and site-specific assessment agreed by all parties 2 Only as amine formulation and in mixtures 3 Stump treatment only 4 Not to be used within drip line of desirable trees 5 Spot application only | ||||
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on wildlife of Network Rail cutting down trees, bushes and hedges during nesting season, and what plans they have to end this practice.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
The government has not made an assessment of this. Network Rail has processes in place for managing tree removal around nesting season. In advance of any work there are, amongst other checks and surveys, specific checks to identify if there are any nesting birds within the vegetation Network Rail is planning to manage. Any identified or suspected nesting birds are left in situ and an exclusion zone created around them. Teams return after any chicks have fledged. If there are particular safety concerns with the vegetation, there are exemptions within the legislation which Network Rail could use following consultation with ecologists, lawyers and the British Transport Police.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the number of trees and bushes alongside railway lines that have been cut down in excess of that required to prevent trees falling on the lines.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
The government has not made an estimate of this figure. Network Rail must prioritise the performance and safe operation of the railway whilst also carrying out its activities in a way that minimises harm, and wherever possible improves the natural habitat. Trees are removed from beside the railway line for a number of reasons beyond the risk of falling on the line, including invasive species, pests or disease (such as ash dieback) and leaf fall.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to provide level access onto trains by acquiring level access rolling stock, raising platform levels or lowering trackbeds.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
Level access onto trains brings a range of benefits and enables easier journeys for passengers with different access requirements. The government has committed to develop a long-term strategy for rolling stock and associated infrastructure, which will look at and consider the issue of level access as part of this work.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker whether there are plans to erect observation towers in front of Peers' Entrance to provide security officers a clear view of St Margaret’s Street over the security fence.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
There are no plans to erect observation towers in front of the Peers’ Entrance. The design of the Abingdon Street fence components was undertaken to carefully balance security requirements and heritage considerations, whilst maintaining necessary lines of sight for the security personnel working in this area, including at nearby entrances.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government when the current consultation on banning bottom trawling in designated marine protected areas will conclude, and what timeline they anticipate for implementing any resulting protections.
Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The consultation will close on 1 September 2025. Any resulting protection will be implemented as soon as is reasonably practical, but we cannot pre-judge the outcome of the consultation.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to their consultation on banning bottom trawling in marine protected areas (MPAs), whether the 42 sites currently under consultation are in addition to the MPAs in which bottom trawling is already banned.
Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The proposed restrictions to bottom trawling in the consultation are in addition to those currently in place in the Marine Protected Areas. The level of protection from bottom trawling varies in each site, with some sites currently having no protection and others having partial bans. Full details of what is being proposed in each site can be found in the consultation document, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/stage-3-consultation-document.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker for how many days the disabled entrance door at Peers' Entrance has been out of action; and whether he is seeking compensation from the installers of the door for its failure and the additional cost of security personnel to activate the automatic mechanism.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Since it first opened in December 2024, the accessible pod at Peers’ Entrance has been out of action (requiring Peers to be diverted to an alternative accessible entry point) for 3 whole sitting days.
The resources associated with the operation of Peers’ Entrance have been met from existing departmental budgets, with no additional cost to the House or to the taxpayer.
The House Administration will need to consider corrective action or damages under the terms of our contracts for the works. These discussions are live and I am therefore not in a position to comment on the ongoing commercial and legal matters.
I know that the House Administration acknowledges the difficulties that have emerged and are urgently working on a permanent solution to resolve the ongoing issues.