Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, there has been such a remarkable degree of unanimity of view on this topic, especially from the voices from Northern Ireland, that I worry that I may start by saying some things that sound a little harsh. The first is that I do not accept the proposition that Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. That question was not on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper was whether the UK should remain in the European Union or leave, and the fact that a certain geographical part in this UK-wide vote happened to vote one way or another is merely a fact of historical interest: it has no legal or practical effect. It is like saying that London voted to stay in the European Union. What one means is that the majority of people in London voted for the UK to stay in the European Union. That is perfectly true, but nothing flows from it. To imply or claim that something flows from it in the case of Northern Ireland, I think, is a mistake.

The second thing I want to say is that I rather resent, especially having myself been a staunch supporter of Brexit in 2016 and still being so, the fact that debates such as this are used by certain colleagues, not least the noble Baroness I am following, to continue to claim that everything is the fault of Brexit, and would not it be wonderful if we reversed it all and went back and joined the European Union. There is very little basis for that claim.

I discovered something interesting in the course of this. Like, I suspect, certain other noble Lords who are not great experts on vehicle type approval, I assumed that the Windsor Framework—remember that the Northern Ireland protocol was going to give the best of both worlds to Northern Ireland—meant that the people of Northern Ireland would bask in the luxury of being able to choose between a rich array of vehicles emanating either from Great Britain or from the European Union, as suited them. In fact I discover, and I am going to quote here briefly from the UK Vehicle Certificate Certification Agency, that:

“While EU and UK(NI) type approvals”—


note the plural there—

“follow the same legislative requirements”—

in other words, they have to have the same content—

“they are considered as separate legislative frameworks. The GB type approval scheme is another separate legislative framework”.

So, in fact, for the people of Northern Ireland, having the best of both worlds, in the case of vehicles, means having access to neither world but having access to their own world only. Since manufacturers, as has been explained, are not that keen to manufacture for this relatively small world—this delicious, beautifully shaped and richly endowed but none the less relatively small world of Northern Ireland, choice is running low.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, explained the difficulty she had in acquiring her car, and I am sure that other stories can be advanced of a similar character. There is nothing, at the moment at least—I would be grateful if the noble Lord could say that this will continue to be the case when these regulations come into effect—to prevent somebody who lives in Northern Ireland going to Britain, buying a car, taking it back, presumably registering it in Northern Ireland, paying its tax in Northern Ireland and so on. So that can happen, but the result, of course, is that the automotive industry in Northern Ireland—that is, the dealerships but also to some extent those parts of the industry that are involved in maintaining cars and doing all those things—will be gutted, because they will not be selling any cars; everyone will be nipping over to Britain to buy a car.

Of course, they could go across to the Republic to buy a car, I presume, but the Republic does not manufacture any cars and they are quite expensive, so Britain is the place to go. But that does not mean that they will necessarily get all the advantages that they would get in buying a car in Britain when there are sales, discounts and so forth, so it is not a satisfactory situation. It is not the best of both worlds—that is the point—and that is what was promised to the people of Northern Ireland. In other words, this is not working for the people of Northern Ireland.

The Government may say that this is not a situation of their making but one they inherited from the previous Government, and that of course is a perfectly fair point. But one of the consequences of being in government is that problems created by other people land on your plate, so it is for the Government to come up with a solution to this, and these instruments do not represent a solution. They are not addressing the problem that exists, so I second those noble Lords from across the Commitee who have asked the Minister to say what the solution is. Everyone has said that this is not the solution, but what is the solution for addressing these real and practical problems that exist in Northern Ireland? We are looking for a practical solution—not an ideological one or one that is to do with whether the EU is a good thing or a bad thing, but a practical solution that means that Northern Ireland can have access to vehicles on at least as good terms as the people of Great Britain. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for bringing forward these Motions and all who have contributed to the debate on these statutory instruments, which are very technical and cover a range of subjects that make up a small part of the type approval requirements for road vehicles. The instruments themselves are part of a continuing process to ensure that the regulatory requirements that apply to cars, vans and other road vehicles keep up with the fast pace of technological developments in the automotive industry. In the absence of updates such as these, the type approval requirements would rapidly become out of date and no longer be fit for purpose. Regular updates are necessary both to ensure that new vehicles meet the highest standards for safety, security and environmental performance and to support the introduction of new technologies and features to benefit UK drivers.

The international nature of vehicle production means that most technical regulatory requirements are harmonised around the world. These are developed in the United Nations by experts from countries as far apart as Japan, Australia and South Africa, but also by experts from the United Kingdom and from European Union member states. More than 70% of GB requirements derive from the United Nations requirements. For instance, the statutory instruments we are discussing today applied in Great Britain the UN regulation on automated lane-keeping systems, UN Regulation 157. These are some of the first examples of self-driving systems, and the statutory instruments allow manufacturers to bring these safely to market.

These statutory instruments also recognise another UN regulation concerning anchorages in vehicles—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, remarked—that allow child restraints to be safely installed. These UN regulations have been adopted across the globe, including the EU, and it makes sense that they should also apply in the United Kingdom. Through the application of these international regulations, UK experts continue to play an important and influential role in setting the regulatory requirements that apply across the United Kingdom.

These amendments will also ensure that a safety system known as eCall continues to work effectively as the mobile signals it relies on switch from the older 2G and 3G standards to the newer 4G and 5G standards. The eCall system works by automatically calling the emergency services in the event of a severe crash, improving response times—especially in single-vehicle accidents in remote areas. In the absence of these amendments, safety would be lowered. My department consulted on these amendments, both publicly and with the devolved Administrations, and the responses showed overwhelming support for the proposals and for the approach to ensuring that GB regulations remain aligned with those in the EU.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I am looking at the Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations. Let me just read out paragraph 5.12, which says:

“Type approval authorities of Governments (‘contracting parties’) that sign up to an internationally agreed specification”—


here, it is referring to the United Nations regulation—

“are permitted to issue approvals to vehicles or components that comply with that regulation. Contracting parties”—

that must include the EU as well as the UK—

“must accept vehicles and components type-approved by another contracting party that is a signatory to the relevant UNECE regulation”.

Does the Minister not think that that brings not a solution, perhaps, but something where the Government can act to make sure that there is a benefit to Northern Ireland in this matter?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord; I will come back to that point, if I may. I am sorry—I have lost my train of thought.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My apologies.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is okay.

I am mindful of the concerns that have been raised around businesses in Northern Ireland—I will come back to that point in a moment—and the challenges that, as we have heard, they face. It is important that dealers and consumers in Northern Ireland are not restricted in their choice of vehicle brands and models, and have the same choice as those across the rest of the UK. The GB-type approval scheme, which these statutory instruments amend, was designed to support manufacturers to mark vehicles with both an EU and a GB approval; the Government fully expect manufacturers to do so.

The technical requirements in the GB scheme are such that vehicle manufacturers can design and approve a single vehicle for the entire UK market. They do not need to conduct additional testing for the GB market or fit components that differ from those used on vehicles intended for the market in Northern Ireland. The updates to the GB scheme made by these statutory instruments preserve this situation and avoid divergence that could prevent the free movement of new vehicles throughout the UK. The interests of both the UK Government and the European Union are the same: we both want vehicles that are safe, clean and secure. UK and EU officials will continue to work together in UN forums to ensure that the regulations reflect this common aim.

None the less, the Government are aware that there is apprehension among some manufacturers and dealerships regarding the potential for future divergence between Great Britain-type and Northern Ireland-type approval systems. To that end, my department has reassured businesses that they should operate on the basis of an explicit presumption of alignment between the GB and the EU schemes. Again, this reflects the shared objectives of improving vehicle standards and working together to develop common technical regulations; it also demonstrates that this Government are committed to providing certainty and clarity to business by ensuring that the type approval regulations remain up to date while easing administrative burdens and supporting trade. My colleague in another place, then the Minister for Roads, wrote to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on 25 June specifically to set out both that commitment and our concern that the basis of the presumption should always be that it will be aligned between the GB and the EU schemes.

These statutory instruments reflect this approach by aligning with the EU on eCall, making sure that the GB scheme uses the same test procedures and applies the same UN regulations. The Government fully expect that vehicles will be dual marked wherever possible to ensure that they can be sold across the United Kingdom. Moreover, we monitor developments and have listened to concerns raised by businesses in Northern Ireland, where it appears that legislation might inadvertently create distortions in the marketplace. We continue to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market; indeed, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury announced in July that we intend to legislate for a UK-wide easement in the benefit-in-kind tax applicable to vehicles in order to address concerns that the recent move to a new emissions level, known as Euro 6e, would unfairly affect customers of vehicles that meet the new emissions standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The Minister is talking about his conversations with manufacturers to ensure that they offer models that are available in GB and in Northern Ireland. How does he conduct those conversations with manufacturers that are not based in Britain and are not manufacturing in Britain? Do they pay any attention?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The answer is that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders represents all manufacturers. Most vehicles are produced in various countries around the world. My understanding, at least, is that they represent all of the manufacturers, wherever they are based. As the noble Lord knows already, I am sure, this is an international market, and it does not suit manufacturers to have many different types of the same vehicle. What we are talking about here are our best efforts to ensure that there are limited types of vehicle; that the types of vehicle that are produced are marketed in as many countries as possible; and, in particular, that the same vehicles are marketed in Great Britain as in Northern Ireland.

I hope that my earlier references to the influence of the United Nations have answered at least some of the questions asked the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. He pointed out paragraph 5.12 of the EM, which I will go away and look at. We are all, I think, trying to do the same thing here: have one set of standards deriving from world standards, to which the EU and UK standards ought to be as near as possible simply because these markets are very large. Manufacturers should be trying to make the same thing. What these regulations, among many other regulations, do—and what we must continue to do—is ensure that all of these standards are as consistent and equal as possible, in order to make manufacturers produce their vehicles to the same standard in as many places as possible.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I do not want to be unhelpful; I am genuinely trying to be helpful. I will make the point that I tried to make in my earlier remarks. The Minister is missing the point slightly when he talks about standards. It may well be the case that they have the same standards—for example, this widget may be exactly the same as the one in another car—but what is significant here is the legal basis of the certification regime. We have three of them in play. Even if they are all producing exactly the same standards, the certification is the difficulty.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly understand the noble Lord’s point. Given that we are working in this area, the best thing that the Government can do is to make sure that whatever rules apply are as easy to comply with as possible. If you have to comply with only one set of rules but the certification is duplicated, that is a very different thing from having to comply with two separate sets of rules.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

That is the Windsor Framework.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think we are at common cause on that. My understanding is that complying with two sorts of certification with the same rules is not particularly burdensome. The assurances that we are giving to the manufacturers, wherever the vehicles are made, is: if the requirements are in harmonisation, it is a relatively easy process to make sure that the vehicles comply with any certification standards. We will see. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised, which I take completely, is that if the ranges offered are so limited, we have more work to do. That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that we will seek to look at.

In response to my noble friends Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lord Murphy, the Government are taking great care to ensure that they comply as much as they can. The answer to both is that the Government will respond to the report from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, by the legal deadline of early January. The Government are doing their best to make sure, by inspection, that the rules that we have set out to apply are the right ones. The first report of the Independent Monitoring Panel concluded that the guarantee was fully met. However, I take the point that that is not the same as the practical implication of what we are debating this afternoon—which is the extent to which vehicle types, and therefore vehicles, are available in Northern Ireland—and our intention is that they always will be. I say to my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick that we will work both with the Northern Ireland Office and my own department to do our best to ensure that what we set out to deliver is what is actually there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to the date of the mandatory phase of GB-type approval as 1 February 2026. I say to her and other noble Lords that we will have more to say on that shortly, and ahead of that deadline, to make sure that the deadline is not a hindrance to these processes and is capable of being adhered to.

The only other thing I have to say to my noble friend Lord Murphy is: happy birthday. That is obviously the right thing to say.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked me a variety of questions. It is our intention to continue to align with the European Union rules, simply because this is an international market and we will not get anywhere if our certification requirements are different. We want to make it as easy as possible for the manufacturers and vendors of motor vehicles to sell the maximum number of vehicles of the same description across those markets.

I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question about oversight in the House of Commons; I do not know whether she expected me to, but I cannot. However, the objective is to ensure that we continue to align fully and that that results in the market in Northern Ireland being no less accessible to manufacturers and the choice for consumers being equal in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted the Vehicle Certification Agency. I will go away and see what it says, but I understand his point about the regimes. My point is that I do not think the requirement for dual certification, if the standards are the same, is particularly onerous, but I take the point that various noble Lords are raising about what is for sale in Northern Ireland. I will go away after this debate and seek both information and advice from the department to see to what extent we can concur with their conclusions about the lack of choice and the lack of sales, and see what else can be done. We will do that in good order before the GB type approval scheme moves to its mandatory phase in February 2026.

I hope I have demonstrated that the reason for these amendments—indeed, the reason why the Government will continue to make amendments such as these—is in order to keep consistency going. I hope I have demonstrated that we are listening to the concerns that have been raised, that we are committed to the continuing refinement of the type approval regulations, and that I will go away and take the points that have been raised by noble Lords very seriously in order that we can make a success of moving the GB type approval scheme to its mandatory phase from February next year so that the market in Northern Ireland is vibrant and the people in it can continue to function.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Does the Minster have an answer to my question about there being no inhibition on the people of Northern Ireland purchasing motor vehicles in Great Britain, taking them to Northern Ireland and registering them there as a result of these instruments, and the Government having no plans to inhibit or restrict that?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I believe that what the noble Lord says is correct—you can buy a car anywhere in the United Kingdom and use it anywhere in the United Kingdom—but equally I take the point that that is probably not an especially helpful message to motor dealers in Northern Ireland, who probably do not want people to travel to England to buy cars, which would not be good for their business.

That is why the Government are concerned to make sure that that market is as vibrant as possible. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—I think it was him—said that 17,000 people’s jobs depended on it, so I should take note of that.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

Will my noble friend the Minister consider working with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office with a view to meeting the manufacturers’ association and those involved in car dealerships in Northern Ireland so that he is fully appraised of the whole picture and that he can provide some comfort to them? At the end of the day, that is what they are looking for.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. I think her proposed remedy is the right one, which is to meet people who know what they are talking about and listen to them. If that is part of the solution here, I am sure that we should do that.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I think we are all agreed that this is a very serious issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, for people in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned constitutional issues. I have sought in this debate to emphasise the practical problems, which are the outworking of some of these wider issues on the constitutional front that in my view are totally unnecessary, but we have to find solutions. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for his reply to this debate and for the tone and content of what he has said, in that he is going to take this away, take it seriously and talk to colleagues and those who matter to try to find solutions. That is what we would love to see happening. Up to now, I do not think there has been enough urgency, if I may say so, as the deadline has crept up and up. I am grateful to the Minister for his commitment. Knowing him and the way in which he operates, I know he will hold fast to that, and that will, I hope, deliver results.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought, Northern Ireland legislative consent granted.

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

My Lords, I am pleased to present the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill for Second Reading today. I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and congratulate him on his forthcoming maiden speech in your Lordships’ House today. I look forward to hearing his contribution to this important debate, and to his many contributions in the months and years ahead.

If we are to be an outward, confident trading nation that is connected to the world and leading the way on innovation, we must move as fast as we can towards a greener, cleaner future for flying. Domestic transport accounted for 29% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2023. Aviation is currently the second largest contributor, and it faces unique barriers to decarbonisation. By 2040 it is set to overtake road vehicle use as transport’s largest emitter. SAF will be key to decarbonisation, a drop-in solution that can be used today in today’s aircraft with today’s infrastructure. SAF also has huge economic benefits for the wider low-carbon fuels industry, potentially supporting up to 15,000 jobs and contributing up to £5 billion to the economy by 2050.

SAF is not the only measure that we are supporting to address emissions in the aviation sector. The Government are supporting the development of more efficient and zero-emission aircraft technologies, and we have announced a further £1 billion of funding for the Aerospace Technology Institute to help to spur green aerospace innovation. The Civil Aviation Authority, supported by my department’s funding, is shaping regulations for zero-emission aircraft through its hydrogen challenge. Alongside that, we are advancing airspace modernisation to enable cleaner, quicker and quieter journeys. The Government are also establishing a UK airspace design service with the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Service, which are working together to launch this by the end of the year.

Turning to aviation fuel, the Government, alongside industry, are working collaboratively to ramp up the UK’s SAF industry. The UK stands at the forefront of global efforts to decarbonise aviation. When this Government came into power, we acted immediately by laying the statutory instrument for the SAF mandate, which came into force on 1 January this year. We have invested £63 million in 17 projects through the Advanced Fuels Fund, which will drive growth, support good jobs and deliver emissions reduction.

The revenue certainty mechanism introduced in the Bill is a scheme designed to support UK SAF production to drive growth and opportunity across the country. It addresses the lack of a clear and predictable market price for SAF, one of the biggest constraints on investment in UK SAF production. The RCM builds on the established precedent of contracts for difference in the renewables sector. Under the RCM, an SAF producer will enter into a private law contract with a government-owned counterparty that sets a guaranteed strike price for SAF. If SAF is sold for under that price, the counterparty will pay the difference to the producer. If SAF is sold above the price, the producer will pay the difference to the counterparty.

It is important to emphasise that no final decisions have been taken on how the strike price will be determined. The RCM contracts must set a strike price that finds a balance between securing the appropriate protection for the producer and its investors and providing value for money for the scheme and the wider sector. This is a new and emerging market. This will be the world’s first SAF RCM, and it will derisk SAF projects by addressing barriers to investment in a nascent market that is using innovative technologies. Like similar schemes in the low-carbon electricity sector, this will help to provide greater certainty of future revenue, help to attract investment in first-of-a-kind SAF plants, and support growth and opportunity across the country.

Turning to the SAF Bill, it has four key areas. First, it will enable the Secretary of State to designate a counterparty that is wholly owned by government. Secondly, the Secretary of State can direct the counterparty to enter into private law contracts with SAF producers, guaranteeing a price for the sale of eligible SAF over a period of time. The mechanism is there to support the development of a first-of-a-kind plant by increasing investor confidence. While first-of-a-kind plants are likely to be more expensive than future plants, supporting them allows future, cheaper plants to get constructed and start producing SAF. The contract allocation process will be designed to maximise competition, with all contracts to be underpinned by robust technical and commercial due diligence to ensure that successful projects represent value for money.

Thirdly, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a levy on suppliers of aviation fuel in the UK, in order to fund the RCM. That will allow the counterparty to collect the levy to cover the costs of issuing payments under contracts that are administering the scheme. It is right that the costs of decarbonising air travel should at least be partially borne by the aviation sector rather than the taxpayer. We are levying aviation fuel suppliers because placing the levy higher up the supply chain spreads costs across the sector, and because aviation fuel suppliers will benefit from the greater volumes and lower prices for SAF that the RCM will create. The RCM will provide support only if SAF is actually being produced. If a project fails, there is no obligation on the Government to provide support. While novel technologies can have high failure rates, we can support multiple technology pathways to minimise risk and strengthen the UK’s project pipeline.

Fourthly, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to enforce certain provisions imposing financial penalties. The Secretary of State may impose a financial penalty on a person who fails to comply with levy regulations, or with requirements under regulations made to ensure that any paid-out surplus is used to benefit fuel suppliers’ customers.

This is a comprehensive and focused Bill that lays the foundations for a thriving UK SAF industry by delivering investment certainty, cutting emissions and securing the long-term sustainability of the aviation industry. More SAF supply and lower prices are good for the aviation sector and, ultimately, for those who wish to fly. The Bill is an essential part of securing our world-class aviation sector’s future, and we want it to do that sustainably. I look forward to engaging with noble Lords on this legislation. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged in today’s lively debate on the Bill. I have listened with much interest to the excellent points raised across your Lordships’ House, and I will now attempt to answer some of the questions. Of course, we can explore many of the issues in greater detail in Committee. In the meantime, I will follow up as soon as I can on some of the issues that I cannot answer now, but I am grateful for such wide, general cross-party support for this important measure.

First, I should compliment the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his maiden speech. He said that sustainability matters; I am so glad that he did, and that he said it in English, because he might have been able to say it in Welsh and I would not have been able to respond. The Government and I are grateful for his support of a vital sustainability measure for air transport, which is essential for the nation’s wealth and defence. The only other thing I should say to the right reverend Prelate at this point is that I am sorry about his train service. I will speak to him separately about the trains to Chester.

As I said, I am grateful for the support of many noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, was supportive. The points that he and many others made and the questions he asked were all about making early progress. The Government are pursuing the Bill now, as we did with the SAF mandate, in order to get on and do this, because getting on and doing this is absolutely what we seek achieve. The noble Lord referred to the net effect of this on the price of airfares, as a number of other noble Lords have done. Our best estimate is plus or minus £1.50—we are confident on that—but I am happy to explore that further in Committee. We do not believe it is plus or minus £10. We believe that we have, at least for the moment, explored the cost that would fall on air passengers.

A number of points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, were about progress, and this Bill is evidence of the Government making progress. Like other noble Lords, he referred to the point of the first tranche and subsequent tranches. We of course need to move beyond HEFA feedstuffs, which is the point of the further tranches of the revenue support mechanism. The noble Earl also referred to the sustainability of UK plant, which is why the Government have put £63 million into the advanced fuel fund: for the very purpose of ensuring that there are plants in this country which can produce sustainable aviation fuel and that the plants themselves are sustainable.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to competition in due course. The Bill includes the opportunity for the Secretary of State in due course to run tenders or auctions as a means of developing this market.

The noble Lord, Lord Raval, talked about waste and foodstuffs. We will, as we go through this Bill, have regard to its overall effect on the provision of sustainable aviation fuel.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for his detailed and compelling speech on this subject and for his great interest. He talked about not allowing crops to be made into SAF. We have committed to publishing a call for evidence by the end of this year on the use of crops in the SAF mandate. The aim is to improve the evidence base on crop-based SAF production, following suggestions from some stakeholders that certain types of crops could be used to increase SAF supply without compromising our approach to sustainability. But we will get information provided through that call for evidence, and we will consider what we find out.

The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, referred particularly to the use of data and how the market price is determined. The counterparty will be responsible for determining the market and should do so by using data that suppliers submit to the SAF mandate reporting system. Our live consultation seeks views on whether the assessment period should use volume data from an earlier period, or—since he suggested that is not sensible—uses forecast volume data. We will have more discussion about that in due course, I am sure. He also made a very strong point about the support being used only for production in the United Kingdom. We intend to support only eligible SAF plants in the UK; I am sure we will discuss that further. It is a strong point and I will consider it as we get to Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about cleaner skies and warmer homes. I am aware of the consultation on alternative heating solutions, and we are working with our colleagues in DESNZ to move those forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, does not agree with this at all. We have discussed the points she was making about aviation before. This is a move towards net zero. We are trying to make aviation more sustainable, as it is not going to stop overnight and is important for the economy of the country. The mandate will save some net additional 54 million tonnes of CO₂. On the noble Baroness’s other point about frequent flyers, last year the Government altered air passenger duty which does have an effect on more frequent flyers.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harper. He made some substantial points. The noble Lord referred to a flight that used 100% sustainable aviation fuel; I believe he was a passenger on it. If I may, I will try to respond in detail to the points that the noble Lord made before Committee stage.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is perhaps not so supportive, though in the end I think he said he was. But what we are doing is important. We should be trying to move into a market that self-evidently can be a success for British industry, if we approach it properly. Government intervention, as justified by a number of noble Lords this afternoon, is the only way to do it. The noble Viscount is very sceptical of the effect on pricing for passengers; again, I have no doubt that we will discuss this in Committee and afterwards. Of course, he wants safety not to be compromised; none of us does. It is only right to point out that another noble Lord on his Benches was on a flight wholly powered by sustainable aviation fuel and I doubt whether the noble Lord would put himself at risk: I hope he would not. We are absolutely committed to safety. We are also committed to the fuel economy, which he mentioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to nuclear and hydrogen power. The Government have clearly not set their mind against any solution. The significant funding put towards investing in technical solutions and the way in which the SAF process is being developed encourages other solutions and will encourage British industry to look particularly towards these solutions in the longer term. We will, of course, prioritise UK technology. This is the point and it is a good thing to do.

My noble friend Lord Hanworth is also probably not supportive—not because he does not agree with the general principle but because he somehow thinks, despite all we are doing to be at the forefront of global action, including the £63 million we are putting into the advanced fuels fund, that somehow this is not enough and that there should be some red-blooded approach. I contend that this is a pretty red-blooded approach from the Government. Significant sums of public money have been put into it, and we believe that it is the right thing to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, referred to the nuclear option. SAF produced using nuclear energy is and will be eligible for the SAF mandate. We have provided funding to support the development of this technology through the grant funding programme of the advanced fuels fund. We are clearly on a journey and I note the noble Baroness’s proposition that it will need longer-term support. Although the Bill is limited to a term of 10 years, the support term is not so limited. I hope the noble Baroness will note that this is one of the reasons why.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made some strong points. As I have said, we are on a journey. In Committee, we can discuss the consistency of the trajectory of that journey with the EU and other countries that have set themselves different targets. Of course, it is not the only measure: zero-emission flying is and could not be just about SAF. To that end, we have talked about airspace modernisation, which is something the noble Baroness knows about. We have looked at funding of up to £2.3 billion over 10 years to extend the Aerospace Technology Institute which was announced in the modern industrial strategy in June to look at low-emission and zero-emission aircraft. We are looking at reducing aviation emissions through schemes such as the UK Emissions Trading Scheme on carbon pricing. We are also seeking to address the non-CO₂ impacts of aviation. The noble Baroness is correct, of course, in looking at everything to do with carbon reduction in flying, not just aircraft fuel and technology but the operations surrounding aircraft. She mentioned the activities in that respect of DHL, which is a major user of aircraft.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for whom I have huge respect, appears to see a conspiracy between all the parties here to do something which he does not seem to support, which is to have an industrial policy that gives British industry the chance to develop something new in the world and to develop jobs and processes which will lead to a bigger economy. He is not in the same place as some of his colleagues on his own Benches on that and I think that he is wrong, because this is not only an industrial policy but a step towards net zero. He mentioned power-to-liquid, and we have invested in that in the advanced fuels fund. He asked a couple of very detailed questions about the World Trade Organization, and I would be delighted to write to him with the answers, supposing that I was unable to provide answers from the Dispatch Box just now.

Once again, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate today and I welcome the support of the many who spoke in favour of the Bill’s measures. The Bill will kick-start the UK SAF industry, attracting investment and creating jobs. By addressing the market and investment uncertainty in SAF production, it will enable the UK to lead the way to greener aviation. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 October be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 19 November.

Motion agreed.

South Western Railway

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathcarron]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the performance of South Western Railway since nationalisation, and whether they have taken account of its performance in their plans to nationalise other railways.

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

My Lords, South Western’s performance before and after public ownership has remained below the standards passengers deserve. We inherited from both the previous Government’s management and the previous owners a very serious driver shortage, and 84 out of 90 new trains sitting in sidings, unused but being paid for from the public purse, for several years. Since May, the number of new trains in service has quadrupled and many more drivers are being recruited. It will take time to fix the poor management of the past, but the new managing director and his team will do just that.

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, and I agree that this has been a disaster for years. However, passenger groups report that since nationalisation, South Western has suffered a 50% increase in cancellations—it is even worse on Monday mornings and Friday afternoons—and delay minutes per hundred miles have risen by 29%. Rakes have often been halved, leaving passengers standing for whole journeys. Meanwhile, if we can understand them, we see that fares have risen faster than inflation. Would the Minister join me on a weekday morning and pay £49 to stand for one hour in a train from Winchester to Waterloo, and see for himself the results of nationalisation before it starts to affect us all?

[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.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a failure not of nationalisation but of privatisation, and that we have had 13 years of wrecking the train service, like everything else? Is it not the case that we are clearing up the mess left by the previous Administration?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, and he is right.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, a few months ago I asked the Minister about the transition payments that were previously paid when a franchise ended and a new operator came in. He was not at that point able to answer the question about SWR, so I ask him again now, as a few months have passed: have the Government paid any money to FirstGroup as a result of the transition from private to public, and have any further payments been made since the time of the transition?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government are very reluctant to pay any money to the previous owners, bearing in mind the condition in which the service was left. That discussion is still carrying on, but I am not aware of any money so far being paid and I would not be keen to pay any in the future.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron has opened up this debate about privatisation. I have been the first to admit that previous privatisation was on a strange footing, but I notice that on my Southeastern service on the north Kent line, we are getting that back-to-nationalisation Gallic shrug from many of the staff. On the last 20 sectors that I have used over the past three weeks, I think 15 have been delayed. I am using the Delay Repay service, which comes straight out of His Majesty’s Treasury. Whatever one thinks the turnover and the profits of these services are, they are being massively reduced because of the delays. This applies not just to services on the railway; I am also seeing stations under damage and pressure. For instance, the lift has been out of operation for two weeks at Rochester station, which causes me some inconvenience.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There was not a question in there but, now that Southeastern is run by a managing director who is responsible for both the operations and the infrastructure, I will get Steve White to talk to the noble Lord, and he can make his complaints in person on Rochester station.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a user of South Western, but on the Portsmouth line. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, buys a senior railcard. Is not one of the problems with the Government’s policy that they now get blamed for all the problems of the railway companies that they so-called own? The service on my train has been pretty good, except for one incident which I blame the Minister for. Is he confident that South Western will continue to get the investment it needs now that it is under government control?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am confident of that. Indeed, if the noble Lord is a regular user of the Portsmouth line, he will know that the signalling has been replaced in the last three weeks, which demonstrates significant investment in what was an unreliable system. The purpose of the forthcoming Railways Bill is to create Great British Railways so that, for the first time in over 30 years, the railway is run as a holistic whole by people who understand how to run a railway for the benefit of passengers and freight. That is better than the system that I have inherited and have had to work with for many years.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, have not a lot of the problems with the conditions of the rolling stock arisen from the ludicrous decision to put out the work to the leasing companies, for which it was a massive licence to print money? Certainly, neither passengers nor the Treasury benefited from that.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Although it might be possible to agree with my noble friend, on this occasion that is not correct. The old South Western trains have been at the end of their lives for some five years. Indeed, I found when I arrived there an extraordinary plan to spend £25 million trying to resuscitate rusty trains to keep them in service because the new ones have been in the sidings for five years. That is a fault not of the rolling stock companies but of management and the previous Government.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, under the system of franchising, should a franchise fail, the Government would have the opportunity to put in an operator of last resort. Who is the operator of last resort now?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is familiar with that system; indeed, in his Government’s time, four franchises were already in public ownership as a consequence of that. By and large, they are doing better now than they were under the previous regime. You do not need an operator of last resort if you have management committed to a long-term future of the railway which satisfies passengers and freight.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Strathcarron is a passenger who has a strong voice because he sits in your Lordships’ House. Before the election, the Labour Party promised in its manifesto and its document about rail that it will create a “strong passenger voice” for all passengers. However, now that we can see the Railways Bill, we see that it is a wimpish creature—a revamped TravelWatch—which has no power at all to compel Great British Rail. Would not the Minister just like to admit now that in his vision of a single directing mind for the railways in this country there really is no room for the passenger except as supplicant, never as customer?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord should read the draft Bill more carefully. If he does, he will find that the rather antiseptically named passengers’ council—it will have a better name than that in practice—will have the right to ask for regulatory action to be taken against Great British Railways if it fails to deal with subjects that the passengers’ council has a view about. I am very happy to meet the noble Lord afterwards and point him to the specific wording of the clauses; no doubt we will debate them in due course.

Road Injuries and Deaths

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lennie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the annual number of serious injuries and deaths on the roads.

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

My Lords, the annual report on road casualties in 2024 was published on 25 September. Sadly, it detailed 1,602 fatalities and a total of 29,467 people killed or seriously injured. These are awful numbers, but, in the last decade, they have largely plateaued. We are committed to reducing them and making our roads safer than ever by publishing the first road safety strategy in over a decade.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that helpful Answer. This week sees the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims. For me, this is a deeply personal issue. My brother Magnus died exactly a year ago today, having spent four months in Addenbrooke’s Hospital following a crash between a van and his motorbike. Bedfordshire Police attending the crash failed to collect evidence, failed to pursue the crash, failed to breathalyse the van driver involved in the crash and failed my brother’s immediate family in their ongoing search for the truth of the cause of this crash.

Magnus’s family are extremely grateful to Tim Blackwell, a trustee of DocBike, a growing national charity determined to reduce the number of accidents and victims of motorbike crashes, for supporting them in their fight for justice. Magnus became one of the 30,000 or so victims and the 1,800 or so deaths on the road last year that the Minister mentioned. If these numbers were victims of, say, knife crime, there would be a public outcry and appropriate action taken. So I ask the Minister what specific plans the Government have to significantly reduce these shocking figures?

[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.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, our condolences go to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. In fact, as the Minister said, motorcycle users made up over 20% of all road deaths in 2024, and many of these take place on rural roads and away from junctions. Have the Government considered reducing fatal outcomes among motorcycle accidents by mandating emergency notification technology for motorcycles, similar to the automatic eCall system now mandatory in cars, and will that form part of the road safety strategy?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government will look at the use of all modern technology. There has not been a recent road safety strategy and, as the noble Lord sets out, technology has moved on a long way. So we will look at that, because, when an accident occurs, getting help to victims of the accident as soon as possible is obviously life-saving.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I think we are distinguishable.

Is the Minister aware of the figures in Wales for the reduction in road accidents and road deaths following the reduction of the speed limit to 20 miles per hour? Although that has been controversial in some areas and needs to be adjusted, none the less, if people’s lives—children’s lives—can be saved by such a change, surely that can be studied more broadly, and should not the insurance companies be reducing the premium that road drivers pay for their insurance cover in circumstances where the number of accidents is reducing?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I saw recently some very revealing figures on the reduction of accidents in Wales as a consequence of the imposition of the 20 miles per hour speed limit, although there are other views about its blanket introduction; the Government’s view is that introducing lower speed limits where it is appropriate produces the best result. I do not know about the insurance companies in terms of imposing speed limits, but we know that insurance companies should take note of better drivers and, increasingly, technology enables those companies to know where, when and how people are driving.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I also express my condolences to the noble Lord.

The Minister will be aware that yesterday in Australia it was announced for the first time that the number of road deaths caused by taking drugs exceeded the number of deaths caused by drink-driving. Given that, since 2013, the number of deaths caused by taking illegal drugs has increased by 70%, it is a matter of time before we get to that position. Will the noble Lord commit to the same kind of campaign that was waged over a generation to reduce deaths by drinking, by ensuring that people who take drugs have a certainty of being caught?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I was not aware of the recent Australian statistic, but frankly the noble Lord makes a good point and I am not surprised. To address this increase in drug-driving casualties over the last decade, which is manifesting itself increasingly every year, the Government intend to use the THINK! campaign and is finalising a new drug-driving campaign to launch later this year.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the Question. The Minister was very sympathetic to my question about reducing the drink-drive limit last time. He did not go further than being sympathetic, but can he respond to the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Atlee, about random breath tests? Also, what is his reaction to the idea of “alcolocks”, because the majority of people found drinking and driving are repeat offenders?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who did indeed ask that question about drink-driving. We will consider these matters further. My noble friend dealing with the Crime and Policing Bill has a number of amendments to deal with. I am sure that we will deal with them then.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Can anything be done about cycling on pavements?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Yes. It is a really bad thing to do. I will write to the noble and learned Baroness rather than riffle through these papers. Increasing the ability of local authorities to deal with what look like minor transgressions of behaviour but actually badly affect vulnerable people and their confidence and ability to move around. This Government are committed to doing something about it. I will write to her.

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I was not entirely comforted by the Minister’s answer on “alcolocks”. An alcolock is a breathalyser device that is linked to the ignition of a car, which means that somebody who has been drinking cannot start their car. This would massively reduce drink-drive casualties. Can he be a bit firmer on it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I can certainly be a bit clearer about it, because there are public service vehicles that are fitted with the same technology, for some very obvious reasons. It is right to consider all these measures in the round. That is why we are revising the road safety strategy.

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister understand the agony and trauma of losing a much-loved child? A teenage driver, having passed his driving test six weeks earlier, killed his three passengers on the way home from school. If the Minister does understand, what is he going to do about these teenage drivers?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I very much understand the tragedy that the noble Baroness describes, and indeed my ministerial colleagues have met some of the families of victims and of young drivers who have killed their friends and family. It is deeply distressing. The Government are committed to doing something about this. The current THINK! campaign is entirely addressed at young drivers, for this very obvious reason. People are very vulnerable when they start driving and do not have the experience. The Government recognise this and will consider it further in the road safety strategy review that I mentioned.

Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025.

[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.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am not going to say I am stunned, because the noble Lord is wholly reasonable. It is a pleasure to hear his words.

I should just say in response to the noble Baroness that the consultation took place in the first half of 2025. They are not together, because self-evidently they are not together, but the fees regulations will come within 12 to 18 months. All I can say is that a huge amount of work is going on in my department in respect of both maritime legislation, a lot of which is in statutory instruments as we have discussed, and aircraft safety, because both are related to international conventions, to get over the large volume of work created by the withdrawal from the European Union. She can be assured that work is going on at pace.

It is evident that the results of the consultation, which were wholly positive in this respect, are very helpful. I would be much more worried not by its speed but if the consequence was that the maritime industry felt short-changed or uncomfortable with what is being proposed. It is pretty clear that it is not.

I think I have answered all the points that were raised. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his absolute support, as I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for hers. It is vital to ensure that all UK-flagged ships carry safe marine equipment that has been approved by the flag state. Consolidating the 2016 regulations and amending regulations into a single instrument will provide clarity for stakeholders. I am very pleased that both noble Lords got such a comprehensive briefing from the maritime agency. Therefore, I hope they will agree that the objective of these regulations, which is to simplify marine equipment regulations while maintaining high safety and environmental protection standards for UK ships, is desirable. I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Airport Expansion

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they have received regarding the implications of net airport expansion for the United Kingdom’s net-zero target and economy.

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

My Lords, the Climate Change Committee, CCC, is the independent adviser to the Government on climate change commitments, including aviation. The Government have committed to routinely engaging the CCC as part of the Airports National Policy Statement review on how expansion can be made consistent with our net-zero framework. We continue to work closely with the aviation sector on decarbonisation and growing the economy, including through the Jet Zero Taskforce.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the aviation industry will never be environmentally sustainable, and this Government really ought to understand that. At the moment, the 15% of people who take 70% of the flights are protected from paying fuel duty, whereas train travellers are not, and potentially EV drivers as well. Therefore, why not tax frequent flyers, make train fares cheaper and leave EV drivers alone?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

This Government are making huge efforts to make the aviation industry more sustainable. There is a Bill before the House on the sustainable aviation fuel policy. The Government are also pursuing airspace modernisation and providing up to £2.3 billion over 10 years to extend the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, supporting the development of next-generation sustainable technologies. The distance-band structure of the air passenger duty already ensures that those who fly furthest and have the greatest impact on emissions incur the greatest duty. Similarly, given that the air passenger duty is charged on all UK departing flights, those who fly most often pay more.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, rather than discouraging air travel, surely the aim of the Government should be to encourage sustainable aviation. Can my noble friend the Minister say a little more about what progress we are currently making on the sustainable aviation fuel targets?

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Following the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I would like to help the Minister. The current Airports National Policy Statement states that it expects Heathrow to have

“landside airport-related traffic … no greater than today”—

namely, in 2018, when the document was published. Can he state—I think this would help the noble Baroness —whether the same requirement will appear in the new airports national policy statement, which will appear next year and be the basis for the Heathrow expansion?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord will of course recognise that things should have moved on from 2018 but have not. This Government are determined for the first time to move forward with the expansion of the UK’s only hub airport. The statements made in the Airports National Policy Statement in 2018 will be reviewed in the light of the two proposals the Government are currently pursuing, and we will choose one of them before the end of November. The necessary alterations to the draft new airports national policy statement will be available next summer.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister answer a question that is very puzzling to me? When we proposed airport expansion, it was about increasing business traffic into this country. Since Covid, that has simply not been the case; so much business is done online, and in fact, what we are benefiting is tourism. A recent report from the New Economics Foundation found that in 2023, we exported £41 billion abroad, and this is a deficit. What is the logic, given that we are all encouraged to do things online, of vastly expanding our airports right now?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Heathrow is as congested now as it was before Covid, and it will remain congested unless more capacity is given to it. The previous questions on this subject in a short debate we had a few days ago rightly suggested that not only human traffic but goods and services are important—although we did have a debate about whether books or salmon were the most valuable or frequent commodity to be transported. The point is this: the airport is full, it remains full and for the benefit of the British economy, we need to expand it in order to get more flights and build the economy in this country.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I share the concerns expressed about the environmental disbenefits of a third runway at Heathrow Airport, while understanding the potential economic benefits. As the Bishop of London, I have spent time with Reverend Richard Young of St Mary’s Church Harmondsworth, and with residents whose homes and communities lie within the proposed demolition zone of the third runway. They have faced uncertainty for decades, and under the potential proposals, they will continue to face uncertainty for years to come. What are the Government doing to allay their fears and the uncertainty faced by these communities, and to ensure that Heathrow Airport itself provides the appropriate support to them?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for her question. The best thing the Government can do is move forward on this for the first time. The debate about the third runway has been going on for years and years, and the airport is as congested as it ever was, as I said. The residents she refers to, in Harmondsworth, Sipson and other villages, have no satisfaction about the future because the future has been uncertain for a long time. The best thing we can do is to get on with this and make a decision. Of course, we would expect whoever the promoter is to actively work to look after the communities affected by the third runway development.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on moving on with proposals that originally came in the 2003 White Paper, which, as Minister for Transport, I had some hand in. I also point out that our very successful aviation industry is beneficial not only to the economy as a whole but very much to local communities around our main airports, providing well-paid, unionised jobs. Will he get on with it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Well, what can I say to my noble friend, who not only asks this question but gives all the answers as well? I think that will do.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are absolutely right to be pressing ahead with the expansion of Heathrow Airport; it is long overdue. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill will, I hope, answer some of the questions about the environmental impacts.

However, I am concerned about the debate between a short runway and a long runway. Whatever the outcome in the medium term, may I seek assurance from the Minister that we will at least still go ahead with the DCO for the full plan? If we do not, we are going to end up short-changing ourselves again. In the end, Heathrow needs to expand, and it needs to expand properly. Please ensure that that is what happens.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. That is a premature request, because he will know—and maybe the rest of the House does as well—that the two schemes being taken forward are different, and the length of the runway proposed is different. A decision such as the one he suggests ought to be taken as we go forward with one of the two schemes.

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

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 September be approved.

Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny 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.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this draft order. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest shown in ensuring that our railway and car parking legislation remains coherent and fit for purpose.

I will first respond to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The consultation was launched a long time ago. Although I cannot account for periods of time before this Government were elected in mid-2024, it is clear that several factors around the cost of the change and how it would affect train operators’ revenue required resolution before this could proceed. As the noble Baroness remarked, these impacts are now funded and budgeted for, and this draft statutory instrument is being aligned, as has also been remarked on, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s private parking code of practice. In answer to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that is to avoid duplicate signage changes and ensure consistency across the parking industry. Although it has taken a long time, it is clearly the right thing to do.

Heathrow Airport: Third Runway

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what information they intend to publish about the proposals they have received for a third runway at Heathrow Airport before announcing any major decisions.

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

My Lords, Heathrow expansion will support UK competitiveness and economic growth. In June, the Secretary of State invited proposals; several were received, and two remain under active consideration. My department will decide on a single scheme by the end of November to inform the Airports National Policy Statement review, which was launched on 20 October. Proposals will not be published by the department, in accordance with the Secretary of State’s letter of 30 June to potential promoters, though some have independently released details of their schemes.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Heathrow expansion is an absolutely enormous project, and there has been remarkably little public engagement. Before deciding between the two remaining bidders, will the Government agree that they should engage in public consultation, particularly on the costs that will flow through to passengers as a result of the regulatory structure, so that they are aware?

[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.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, at the same time as considering proposals for Heathrow, would the Minister, using his huge talents, give his full support to the Mayor of Doncaster, Ros Jones, for the reopening of Doncaster Airport, which is vital for regional economic growth in Yorkshire and the Humber?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a point that has been raised here before. The Government have put themselves out, as they should, to support the reopening of Doncaster Airport, and of course we will support the Mayor of Doncaster in the aspiration to have better connectivity for that part of Yorkshire.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the debate over Heathrow expansion, which I strongly support—and I draw attention to my entry in the register about working in the aviation industry, albeit not at Heathrow—is often couched in terms of passenger flights. In terms of the Government’s decision-making, what consideration are they giving to the fact that more than £200 billion-worth of trade goes through Heathrow, including a majority of trade in some very important sectors, such as our world-leading pharmaceutical industry?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

A number of noble Lords are re-running the debate we had on Monday evening. The noble Lord is right that 72% of UK air freight by value goes through Heathrow because it is the only hub airport in Britain, and that is why the Government are so keen to expand it. The noble Lord is right that the value of air freight to international trade to and from Britain is an important issue in considering the expansion of the airport.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, can I just challenge this issue of air freight? High-value air freight takes up very little capacity in the holds of aircraft. In fact, we could double the high value, and scarcely no one would notice. Will the Minister confirm that the majority of air freight by bulk and by weight is fish, followed by books, with medicines coming up third? In fact, the Scottish farming industry would do much better if, instead of hubbing all its fish and Scottish passengers down to London, BA ran direct flights from Edinburgh to New York, the route which is most useful for fish.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I had a feeling that fish and books would come up again because they came up on Monday. Of course, value and size are two different things. The point of an international hub airport—of which I should continue to say we have only one and we will have only one, which is Heathrow—is international connectivity around the globe. Expanding an international hub airport should mean more connectivity to more places, and that will enable more fish and books and salmon to be sent all around the globe.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, as part of the assessment of the two remaining bids for the third runway, will my noble friend take into account the additional carbon footprint of the additional planes, the concrete and steel that go into the construction and any other transport that is needed to service the passengers?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that the carbon footprint of building a third runway and operating the airport is significant. The Government have made it clear that any proposed scheme must meet four clear tests, of which aligning with our legal obligations on climate change, including net zero, is one. He is also aware, I think, that the construction industry is moving forward with more carbon-friendly methods of construction, and I think it reasonable that the Government and the country expect a successful scheme to be carbon friendly, if not carbon-neutral, in construction.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, lest there be any doubt, I was here for the beginning of this Question—I was on the Steps. I am sure my noble friend recalls the plans for expansion at Stansted Airport, which extended over more than a decade, 20-odd years ago. They did not, in the end, come to anything of any significance, but there was a lot of collateral damage in the form of compulsory purchases and other acquisition of land that then had to be fed back into the system, and many people suffered as a consequence. Can he reassure us that, when whatever plan is brought forward for expansion at Heathrow, if it is, it will attempt not to put people in that situation again?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important point. The history of airport expansion in Britain is not particularly happy, and a number of proposals have taken a very long time. Indeed, the previous Government’s ANPS did not go anywhere. This Government are determined to make progress in these areas. My noble friend is right that the long-term uncertainty of failing to progress with plans leaves many people uncomfortable or worse. The Government are determined to make progress and have set themselves targets in getting to the DCO and building this thing so that people can be uncertain for as little time as possible and the certainty is as great as possible thereafter.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Will the Minister say whether it is possible for the Government to buy my ex-wife’s house, which is right near the runway? It is absolutely appalling when you go down there. If the Government are going to make billions and billions of pounds for the UK, then perhaps they should be spending some of that money on improving the lives of people who live under the flight paths, because they are going to be adding an enormous amount of worry and concern to people living down there.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will recognise that it would be unusual for a Minister to commit from the Dispatch Box to buying somebody’s property, but the noble Lord’s more serious point is about noise commitments. Any scheme that comes forward should meet the Government’s four clear tests, of which one is that it is consistent with our noise commitments. I would expect promoters not only to meet the Government’s commitments about noise but look at the effect on properties immediately adjacent to the runway that they propose to build.