Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(3 days, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords will wish to know that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered a draft of the order before it was laid and then gave informal pre-laying approval. After the draft order was laid on 16 July, it was formally cleared by the Joint Committee. Likewise, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee formally cleared the draft order. The committee raised no specific concerns about this instrument, although it noted it as an instrument of interest, the reasons for which will be addressed later in my speech. Prior to this, the department had responded to preliminary inquiries from the committee’s clerk to the satisfaction of the committee.
This instrument amends existing aviation safety regulations to update and rationalise requirements for the maintenance and repair of aircraft, and to clarify the Civil Aviation Authority’s powers of delegation. These amendments ensure that UK law remains clear and proportionate.
I will start by providing some background information about these regulations. UK airspace and airlines are among the safest in the world. Even with this success, we are not complacent, and the Government are committed to maintaining and improving the high safety standards in aviation. The UK is therefore committed to ensuring that technical requirements remain up to date, and in line with international standards and best practice set by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The Civil Aviation Authority is the UK’s independent safety regulator, responsible for advising the Government on amendments to technical aviation safety requirements and regulations.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for attending the debate and for their input. I listened intently to the highly experienced noble Baroness, Lady Foster. She raised a valuable point about the minute parts that might cause a serious failure. I recall the example used, albeit not as a practitioner. The answer to that is that type certificate holders will have a design process in place to establish the potential failure impact of every part, and that design process has to be established by the CAA as adequate. Any potential failure must be shown to have a negligible effect on the functioning of the aircraft. The screw that the noble Baroness referred to, part of the assembly of a windscreen, would be considered within the design process so that it would not be excluded from form 1 if the design process for the more major component was safety critical. You could not exclude the screws and still have the windscreen assembly—that is the practical answer to that question.
The noble Baroness asked who the CAA will delegate to. I cannot give her the names of the third parties, but the CAA has set out stringent requirements for third parties to be qualified entities. Qualified entities will be subject to an audit regime to ensure continuing compliance with the CAA’s requirements. They will clearly need sufficient subject matter expertise and regulation capacity, and the CAA will accredit and monitor their performance to ensure continuing safety. The CAA has to set out in detail how it intends to assess the competence of qualified entities for drone flightworthiness, assessment and training. It has experience of doing that in respect of how it dealt with the pilots of fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, so we are entitled to conclude that those processes are robust.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, referred to the delegation of powers. The criteria are more or less what I have just said, but if there is any omission from the explanation that I should have given as a consequence of his question, I will write forthwith. As for the testing of adequate resources for the Civil Aviation Authority, I believe that it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the resources are adequate and that it has adequate resources to pay the agencies to which this work should be delegated. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I will write to the noble Lord and confirm that that is the case in respect of this element of these regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, rightly asked whether the department, and I as the Minister proposing these regulations, take responsibility for them and for the proposal to delegate. The answer to that is, of course, yes. The department should not propose such regulations without feeling confident that it is competent to propose them and that what it is proposing is the right thing to do.
I believe that I have answered all the points raised. I conclude by saying again that the safety of aviation and of the travelling public is a priority for the Government. My department is committed to ensuring that aviation remains safe. The draft regulations form part of an important legislative programme which implements proportionate best practice in aviation safety regulation. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
When I referred to the screws, the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out that we were looking at the design, et cetera, which makes sure that it is a bona fide part. The air accident that took place was not because the screws themselves were badly designed, or that they failed because of what they were, it was when they were fitted—it was the incorrect component. There is a differentiation here between something failing because of a design fault and something failing because the incorrect component has been fitted into a specific, probably critical, area of an aircraft. Could I just leave that with the noble Lord? I thank him.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am very happy that the noble Baroness leaves it with me. I will make sure that I write to her. I recognise the issue that we are dealing with—the incorrect fitment of correct components.
National Policy Statement for Ports
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee takes note of the initial proposal for an amended National Policy Statement for Ports.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate. National policy statements set out the primary legal framework for planning decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, with the Planning Inspectorate providing the examining authority. In the case of ports, they will normally also incorporate a deemed marine licence, on advice from the Marine Management Organisation.
In July 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a review of relevant national policy statements to provide greater clarity for applicants and decision-makers. In the case of ports, a review had already been announced under the previous Administration, and this Government agreed that the review was indeed justified according to the criteria in Section 6 of the Planning Act 2008. The extant National Policy Statement for Ports was designated in 2012, and a great deal has happened institutionally, empirically and policy-wise since then.
The National Policy Statement for Ports initially applied to the whole of England and Wales, but following the Wales Act 2017 it now applies only to England—plus Milford Haven, which is a reserved trust port as defined in the Act. Nevertheless, we have sought to make sure that the national policy statement will continue to take full account of institutional and regulatory differences in Wales, where relevant.
The initial proposed revised national policy statement for ports was laid in Parliament on 4 June 2025 and published for public consultation, alongside an appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulations assessment. When I refer to the national policy statement for ports from now on, I will mean this initial proposed revised version unless the context indicates otherwise.
In parallel with this publication, the department issued revised port freight demand forecasts for the whole of the United Kingdom, and these forecasts are quoted in the revised national policy statement for ports. The forecasts, very briefly, predict substantial demand-driven growth in unit load traffic—in roll-on roll-off and containers primarily—alongside a continuing decline in liquid bulks, particularly reflecting the changing energy generation mix. The consultation closed on 29 July 2025, and 38 responses were received—not a great number, but including numerous seriously considered suggestions for detailed amendments from respondents closely engaged with the sector. We are considering these and will issue a formal response in due course and revise the draft national policy statement for ports as necessary.
One message that has come through from many respondents, aside from the drafting of the NPSP, is the need for promoting wider familiarity with it, especially among local authorities, in view of its relevance to other consenting regimes, as well as for development consent orders under the Planning Act, for which it sets the statutory framework.
In another place, the Transport Select Committee is currently scrutinising the proposed national policy statement for ports and will publish its report by 14 November, the end of the relevant period that has been stipulated. The committee took written submissions up to 1 August and held oral hearings on 10 and 16 September. After the committee has reported, the Secretary of State will formally respond to its report, as prescribed by the Planning Act. The Government then aim to lay the national policy statement for ports in its final form for its statutory 21 sitting-day consideration period. I look forward to hearing all the contributions to today’s debate. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is fitting that, in calling the debate, the House has recognised the importance of the port sector in England and the UK as a whole. Our ports are essential to our trade and our economy, and it is important that they should have a stable, clear planning framework that respects commercial judgment and the competitive setting that has successfully nurtured investment over the years, while at the same time providing for not only environmental protection but environmental enhancement.
Noble Lords will recognise the consultative nature of the draft policy and of this Grand Committee debate, and the range of representations made across the consultation and in the hearings of the Transport Select Committee in the other place. All of those will be considered by the Secretary of State. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I was not going to take the time of this Committee or test the patience of those attending it, some of whom are very well versed in ports, by going through the document in detail. I will attempt to deal with many of the points that have been raised, but, for any that I fail to deal with, I will write.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others raised important points about energy supply, power supply and new technologies. I listened carefully to what he said, because it was very well argued. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Greenway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, also raised those points. We will go away and further consider this. There are energy national policy statements that will deal with the supply of energy, and the Government are working with the energy supply companies, but I very much take on board the rapidly changing nature of energy supply and, therefore, the need for this policy to recognise those opportunities and for us as a nation and the Government to take advantage of what ports can propose to do. The answer to the question of whether we are open-minded to all forms of new energy is that we are; some are immature and therefore need to evolve, but it would be daft, frankly, not to have regard to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Fuller, and others about taking this in hand.
I recognise the extensive experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, at Harwich. We must do this national strategy now because it has not been done since 2012. There is an opportunity to do something more fundamental in the future, but, having not had one for 13 years, the Government intend to get it more up to date to enable port development to be more easily examined through the planning processes and hence go forward more quickly than it otherwise might have done. I take the point, also made by others, that it could be more fundamentally reworked, but the Government are committed to doing something now because, although I hear criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and others, the previous Government do not seem to have had regard to this strongly. They started the process but did not finish it, and our job is to finish this sooner rather than later and then do it regularly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and other noble Lords raised the matter of connectivity to ports. As in other boundary areas between this and the national policy statements, we must take a view on what is covered in which area. I absolutely recognise the proposition that ports need good road and rail connections. As she and other noble Lords will know, we were challenged in the rail enhancements programme simply by the current state of the economy. Proposals that would improve freight routes to ports were not taken forward, but they have not been removed from the plans for ever; they will be considered further. In the meantime, there is consideration of further rail connections at London Gateway—I spoke to DP World about them the other day—so we are thinking about those areas and recognise the importance of those connections. The use of port master plans is primarily for early engagement with communities and planning authorities. We will think further about how much more useful they might be. I recognise what the noble Baroness said.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred to important issues around security. We fully agree that, with the current state of international relations and modern technology, we should be very mindful of security. Indeed, this policy is designed fully to include security considerations. He referred to the recent ship collision in the North Sea; it was an unfortunate collision but it was not motivated by security considerations, although we obviously recognise that it could have been. We are mindful of that.
We are also mindful of the need for local authorities to recognise the importance of ports. Indeed, one of the strengths in renewing this document is our renewed commitment to draw this issue to the attention of appropriate local authorities so that they are fully engaged with the development and importance of ports —including the critical nature of ports for all communities in Britain, particularly in the communities where they are placed.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, clearly has intimate knowledge of this sector; I recognise and respect what he says. He is, as many people who are close to these subjects might be, more critical of how this works in practice and how it might work. The best thing I can do is take away his detailed comments and consider them carefully, bearing in mind his long and current experience. I would say that there is no legal impediment to long leases—take, for example, the recent development in Southampton—but I am not going to challenge anything he says, other than to say that the Government are anxious to make the best of this. We will listen carefully to what he has to say. The intention of this policy is to make port development easier and better. We will reflect carefully on what the noble Lord has to say and see what we can do about the points that he raises.
I welcome the general support given by a number of noble Lords in this discussion. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, raised the relationship with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The answer to this is that the Government intend to make things easier to do. This is very complicated; it is not a subject that has been tackled by previous Governments, but this Government are determined to do it. The relationship between these proposals and elements of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill needs to be considered carefully. The final ports strategy will relate to, and be relevant to, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which noble Lords will recognise is going through this House as we speak.
There is a point about the use of forecasts, which is that the forecasts in here are those from Government, but they are not constraints—a point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Applicants are welcome to make their own forecasts. The Government should have some forecasts about port usage, but there is no universal knowledge, so applicants are welcome to make their own. We are going to think about doing more with floating offshore wind farms. The point about FLOW from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and others is well taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about Scotland, which has its own policies so this document does not and should not refer to it. He too referred to the interaction with other policies. We must draw a line somewhere about which national policy statements deal with which issues, and we are expecting the energy national policy statement.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to grid capacity, which I mentioned before. The Government are working with power suppliers. It is clearly an important part of the Government’s energy policy to have enough capacity on the grid and the connections into places that need it in order to supply the power that is so obviously needed, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, asked me to reflect on the connection between this national policy statement for ports and the industrial strategy, and I will do so. She raised several other matters that I have already dealt with in terms of onward transport and the capacity of road and, in particular, rail. She raised the matter of the Crown Estate; the department works closely with it. She also raised offshore wind, on which I have already commented. I recognise that she also raised some points about the connection between this policy statement and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will go away and make sure that the statement is consistent with the outcome of that Bill’s consideration in the House.
The intention of the national policy statement is to make it easier for applicants who want to expand ports to do so. That has to be considered at the point of revising the statement. It is not the intention—other noble Lords suggested that it might be—to make this more complex. The outcomes of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and of this national policy statement are clearly designed to enable those who own and operate ports to more easily expand them in order to deal with the commercial development of port traffic.
Finally, the glass of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is definitely half empty this afternoon. I do not recognise some of the things that he is talking about. In any event, I should say to him very quietly but probably persistently, that if the previous Government thought that this was so bad and that the fragmentation of the planning system prevented the commercial development of ports, they could have done something rather more about it in their term of office than they did. Starting this process off, which is obviously the right thing to do after not having an updated statement for 13 years, is designed to make development easier and improve the commerce of this country, and hence its economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked me three direct questions at the end, the first of which was: are the forecasts contestable? Yes, they are, and applicants are welcome to use their own forecasts. Secondly, he asked: will the Government take steps on electricity costs and grid connections? They will and I have said that the Government are working with power suppliers. Thirdly, he made a comparison of this with the Chancellor’s Statement in March. The answer is that there is no inconsistency at all. The intention of revising this policy statement is to produce a clearer playing field for port expansion and development. That is exactly what the Chancellor was talking about in terms of developing trade in this country. It has not been done for 13 years. It should have been done; it is being done now, and this is the right thing to do.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill ExcerptsMonday 13th October 2025
(5 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 132-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (10 Oct 2025)
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 1.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
I apologise to the House for my brief absence. In speaking to this Motion, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group and to Motions 1A, 8A, 8B and 29A. It is a pleasure to bring the Bill back to the House for its final stages and to engage on the remaining areas. This is an important Bill that empowers and provides local authorities with the tools to make the right decisions on bus services for their local areas. Debate on the Bill has considered the importance of local bus services and how we need improvement, so I hope that noble Lords will continue to support this ambition.
There have been changes since the Bill was last in this House. These include the removal of some amendments, such as the purpose clause, the assessment of the impact of national insurance contributions on accessing socially necessary local services, and the review of the provision of services to villages. There have been changes that extend the existing zero-emission vehicle measure to Scotland, which replicates the application in England. There is also a carve-out for Wales on some measures, and there are smaller changes on removing unnecessary data overrides and on the variation of franchises.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Motion 1A on the purpose clause. The Government have made it clear throughout the stages of the Bill that improving buses is a priority, and that includes services, performance and accessibility. But the Bill also goes wider, including cleaner and safer travel and providing the ability for local transport authorities to make their own funding decisions. The purpose clause would run contrary to this and could also have unanticipated effects on the interpretation of the Act and the exercise of powers under it. This is something that the Government cannot support.
Motion 8A from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to review the impact of the £2 fare cap on socially necessary local services. My department has already published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 bus fare cap. This showed that the cap delivered low value for money. Work is already under way to undertake a review on the £3 cap. Therefore, a legislative requirement for further evaluative work would be duplicative and unnecessary.
Motion 8A also looks at reviewing the impact of national insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary local services, including transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities, or SEND. This would be impossible to implement, because it seeks a review three months after Royal Assent. Socially necessary local services are likely to take some time to be identified and agreed by local authorities, making any assessment premature.
I understand the ambition behind Motion 8B from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I cannot support Amendment 8C, which seeks to ensure that the £2 bus fare cap is maintained for passengers using services that have been identified as socially necessary local services. I have already set out that the £2 fare cap has been assessed as poor value for money and that work is under way to review the £3 cap. Therefore, any further legislative requirement would be duplicative and unnecessary. In addition, socially necessary local services have not yet been identified and any review into these will take time.
Finally, I turn to Motion 29A from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on reviewing the provision of services to villages. I thank her for her engagement on this issue. I reassure her and others that the Government expect local transport authorities to consider the needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts. Measures such as franchising or setting up a local authority bus company take time, so an assessment within two years would not leave enough time to capture and assess the full impact.
However, following discussions, the Government will commit to undertake a review of socially necessary local services and rural services after five years, which will include local bus services used by children with special educational needs and disabilities. The Bill is about improving local bus services. Therefore, this is the appropriate scope for a review of its impact. It is important and right to understand how these services are performing and supporting the local communities who truly need them. I hope this therefore delivers on the ambitions of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and those behind Motion 8B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon.
For special educational needs and disabled children beyond this Bill, the Government have committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools so that fewer children need to travel long distances to a school that can meet their needs. The Government will bring forward a White Paper with plans to improve the SEND system.
I hope noble Lords will accept the other changes in this group that were made in the Lords and have not yet been debated. I beg to move.
Motion 1A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 1)
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 2 to 7.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 8.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I should advise the House that if Motion 8A is agreed to then I will not be able to put the Question on Motion 8B on the grounds of pre-emption.
Motion 8A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 8)
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 9 to 27.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 28.
“Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland
(1) The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 is amended as follows.
(2) Before the italic heading preceding section 36 insert—
“Zero-emission vehicles
35B Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services
(1) The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3) to provide the service in Scotland.
(2) A service falls within this subsection if it is a local service which has one or more stopping places in Scotland and which—
(a) is registered under section 6 of the 1985 Act, or
(b) is not required to be registered under that section because of section 13B(1)(a).
(3) A vehicle falls within this subsection if—
(a) it is constructed or adapted to carry both seated and standing passengers, with the number of seated passengers being more than 22 (determined in accordance with regulations made under section 26 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981),
(b) it is first registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 on or after a date specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the tailpipe emissions from it include any of the following—
(i) carbon dioxide,
(ii) carbon monoxide,
(iii) hydrocarbon,
(iv) nitrogen oxide,
(v) particulates.
(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations—
(a) specify descriptions of document that may be relied on in order to determine for the purposes of this section what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle,
(b) specify descriptions of vehicle in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply, and
(c) specify local services or descriptions of local service in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply.
(5) The date specified under subsection (3)(b) may not be before 1 January 2030.”
(3) In section 39(1) (penalties)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (c), and
(b) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(ca) operated a local service in contravention of section 35B(1) of this Act, or”.
(4) In section 81(4) (regulations and orders), in paragraph (b), after “35A(1)” insert “, 35B(3)(b)”.”
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group and to Motions 30A and 31A.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his Motion 30A and efforts to raise the important issue of bus safety throughout the Bill’s passage. He is pursuing a Vision Zero programme for the bus sector, which would aim to eliminate serious injuries in the course of bus operations. As I said on Report, the Government are sympathetic to the aims of this Motion and we take safety incidents very seriously—in the bus sector and, indeed, on any mode of transport. The Government are committed to reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads and will publish a road safety strategy in due course—the first such strategy since 2011.
The noble Lord has been an excellent advocate for bus safety, and I am pleased to confirm to him that buses will be included in the strategy. This will be an opportunity to highlight existing good work in the sector, including that of Transport for London and the Bus Centre of Excellence. To take the Bus Centre of Excellence example, it has convened the bus knowledge sharing and incident network, bringing together industry experts, safety specialists and bus professionals to share knowledge, develop best practice and shape policy and regulatory improvements in bus safety.
Of course, road safety is inherently multimodal. It is important that we consider all road users and the environment they operate in, be that on foot, by bicycle, in a car or indeed on a bus, to protect people as much as possible. That is why my department has been looking closely at the safe system principles. This is an internationally accepted, evidence-based approach to road safety, underpinned by five pillars: safe roads, safe vehicles, safe road users, safe speed, and post-crash care. These principles are a core component of Vision Zero programmes that have been adopted both internationally, including by Australia and New Zealand following early adopters Sweden and the Netherlands, and locally by authorities such as West Midlands and West Yorkshire.
The Government will look to utilise these principles in their delivery of the forthcoming road safety strategy. This strategy will lay the foundation for government leadership while providing flexibility for local authorities to determine the most appropriate approach for their local circumstances.
This means that local areas can adopt Vision Zero programmes if they deem it suitable. Increasingly, local areas are doing just that. London’s Vision Zero programme is underpinned by a dedicated bus safety action plan and bus vehicle standards. It provides an exemplar of best practice for other local areas to aspire towards. This is already happening. The noble Lord will know that Greater Manchester and Oxfordshire, among others, have recently adopted Vision Zero strategies of their own. The Government welcome other local areas considering bus safety programmes, or even Vision Zero strategies for their areas, but it must be right for them.
I now turn to Motion 31A, which was previously brought by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and is now tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on the recording and publication of data on assaults. This Government wholeheartedly want to make the bus network safer for everyone, and this includes combating violence against women and girls. In considering whether to increase the level of reporting, it is important to also be conscious of the privacy of those who report incidents and whether individuals are comfortable with sensitive data being recorded and shared with external organisations.
I hope noble Lords will take comfort from the fact that the Government are already taking action to address violence against women and girls. We are due to publish a new violence against women and girls strategy shortly. We have also developed an evidence-based programme to tackle violence against women and girls on transport, working across government and with partners such as the British Transport Police.
I would also like to stress the importance of considering what is already captured by the police and avoiding any duplication. Statistics captured by the police include all incidents that have been reported to them, meaning that incidents of serious assaults and violence that occur on buses are already recorded. This is the case irrespective of whether incidents have been reported by victims, witnesses or third parties. These statistics also include incidents whether they are crime related or not—for instance, incidents not immediately recorded as a crime are still captured in the registration of an auditable incident report by the police. Bearing in mind, sadly inevitably, the sensitivity of some of the details in reports from individual women and girls, it is surely much preferable for these details to be held by the police rather than by local transport authorities or bus companies.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lords feel reassured that the Government have and will continue to take action and that the amendments do not need to be pursued. I also hope noble Lords will accept the other changes in this group that were made in the Lords and have not been debated today. I beg to move.
Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)
My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord about the nonsense, if he would like. For five years during that period I was a member of the Labour Party NEC, and, to my knowledge, whatever is in that book is probably a lot of nonsense as well.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to close this debate. I thank noble Lords for their contributions on the important topic of bus safety. To be clear, this Government want a safer bus network and that is why there are already measures in the Bill aimed at supporting this. The Government take this issue extremely seriously and are committed to delivering road safety improvement across the transport system.
Having listened to the points made on the recording and publication of data on assaults, I reiterate that the Government are already undertaking a programme of work to tackle violence against women and girls, particularly on public transport. We are also keen to avoid any duplication of data that is already captured by the police and to ensure that any captured data is kept by an authority that is supremely capable of looking after it.
We are no longer on Report, but I have listened to my noble friend Lord Snape and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for whom I have great respect. The matter of floating bus stops was discussed on Report. I made a commitment, as did the Minister for buses in the other place, which I will not repeat but which we will stand by. I therefore hope that noble Lords are satisfied and feel able not to pursue their Motions. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 29.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 30.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 31.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 32 to 55.
“(1A) Section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland) extends to Scotland only.”
Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Order laid before the House on 1 July be approved.
Rail Fares
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to simplify rail fares for passengers.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the fragmented railway we inherited has a fares system that passengers neither understand nor trust. We are addressing this through delivering pay-as-you-go, with simpler fares in London and the south-east, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, and trialling digital pay-as-you-go in the east Midlands and Yorkshire. On long-distance routes, we are learning from the LNER trial to make long-distance fares easier to understand.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. While it is good to hear about initiatives in some parts of the country, passengers have faced rail fare increases year after year for an unreliable service. I therefore ask the Minister, when will passengers have simplified rail fares so they can be confident they are not being ripped off every time they catch a train?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that people are very uncertain about buying tickets and do not trust that they are getting the best value. The fares system has grown like Topsy over the last 30-odd years. There are 50 million fares in the British railway system and, in order to eat the elephant, we have to do it in pieces. We are starting; nobody has previously started. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, once said to me that he had tried to do it as Secretary of State and the system had not allowed him to make the progress he had hoped for. We are making progress, but it will take time. Meanwhile, the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act has enabled train operations to come back into public ownership. The noble Baroness will know, because she met the managing director of South Western Railway, that he inherited a fleet of 90 trains, 84 of which were in sidings. Today, 21 of them are in service. I think that that is progress.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, the Minister rightly pointed to my complete failure as Secretary of State for Transport. However, will he reassure us that in the brave new world he is promising for the railways, where the Treasury will be totally onside with everything he wants to do, he will manage to see a simplified rail fare system? When people say “simplified”, what they usually want is a cheaper rail system. What does he think the chances are when he is controller of Railways UK and the Treasury is the chairman?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord was not an absolute failure in the job; he was brilliant, and he of course appointed a very competent chair of Network Rail in his time—for which I am grateful, but my wife is not. My noble friend Lord Livermore is sat next to me, and he deals with Treasury matters; for the moment, at least, I deal with transport and the railways. The truth is that the railways are in a very bad financial position. They are taking twice the subsidy that they did pre-Covid, and they do not run very well—the noble Lord is right about that. We have a huge amount of work to do. Matters such as the balance between fares and subsidy and the performance of the railway need to be addressed, which is why the Government are addressing them through the public ownership Act and the Railways Act. It will take time—the system has taken 200 years to create—but we are determined to make a real difference in the course of this Parliament.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the present system of passenger compensation for when the train is late seems to work well, in my experience. Will that change with the new, wonderful structure that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, outlined? Who will pay the compensation to passengers?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. It is right that there is compensation. The rates vary and the system of paying it is complex; for example, if you have bought your ticket from a third-party ticket retailer, it is sometimes not easy to get your money back through Delay Repay. We know that we need to address all those things. In the end, GBR will be operating the public sector railway, and therefore the system for people to make claims will inevitably be simplified.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as a general South Western Railway passenger, it used to take three hours for me to get to Devon, but it now takes just under four. I now go by GWR, which takes two hours and 10 or 20 minutes to get to roughly the same area. I absolutely do not understand why something cannot be done to deal with South Western Railway, a point already raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the noble and learned Baroness is referring to the Salisbury to Exeter line, which has a long history. It was built cheaply to compete with Great Western Railway. The cuttings are steep and the tunnel portals are surrounded by earth, but, sadly, this summer journey times have been extended due to soil moisture deficit, which is a modern problem. The management of SWR has every intention of getting back to the normal timetable, but they must operate the railway safely in the meantime. I would be very happy to introduce the noble and learned Baroness to the new managing director, so he can explain that to her himself, because he is responsible for both its operations and its infrastructure.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, discount railcards such as the senior railcard can be an expensive lump sum for many people. Is the Minister looking at proposals for some kind of loyalty card to encourage people more widely to choose the railway for their journeys?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness highlights that the number of discount cards has grown over the years. Some of them have different conditions from others, so it is quite hard to understand, if you do not have one, which one might be applicable. We are mindful that, when GBR is up and running, it addresses consistency and examines what else can be done to encourage people to travel by train.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, fare simplification, by definition, means that there will be fewer fares options. Can the Government guarantee that, under their simplification programme, no individual fare will go up purely because of fare simplification?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord has some background in this, because he was deputy chair of Transport for London and, I think, the Deputy Mayor for Transport. He knows perfectly well that, when we rationalised the fare structure on the Tube, some fares did go up while others went down. We made sure that the fares that went up were generally ones that a lot of people did not pay for and that the benefits were found across the system. If we have 50 million fares, we inevitably need to reduce that number and ensure that they are balanced. The noble Lord has some experience of balancing them within an overall fare rise, so he should use that knowledge to his own advantage, because I do not particularly want to tell him this again.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, in introducing this Question, the noble Baroness talked about terrible railways. I know that, for many people, the world stops outside London and the south-east of England. As a regular traveller on LNER for the last 23 years, I think it is a very good system, with dedicated staff, and the timings are good. It is an example of what can be done with a nationalised railway system. I urge my noble friend to see what can be done to simplify the offer of tickets, because it is complex even on that line. But it is not all doom and gloom on our railways.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
That is a very welcome sentiment, and I appreciate it. We are trying hard, as is the management of LNER, to get some rationalisation into this, and it is convenient for people. The proposition that you can buy a ticket with plus or minus 70 minutes means that you do not have to travel on the train that you thought you might; there is some flexibility. Regardless of some of the comments about individual fares, the new system is proving very popular, and enormous numbers of tickets are being bought. For example, for the booking horizon between August and December, 1.1 million new semi-flexible tickets are available that are priced at less than the super off-peak fare. People are discovering that a different methodology for this works.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I have suffered a number of cancelled trains on my journeys, and cancellations have been explained as being due to a driver shortage. Is there a driver problem—a lack of numbers—or is there some other likely explanation?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord is right: there is a driver shortage. Most train operating companies do not have enough drivers to staff the service. Although one would like to measure the railways in terms of passenger outcomes, I have determined that the number of drivers be one of the input measures of the business plans of all train operating companies, whether they are publicly or privately owned. Since Covid, a number of companies have not made enough progress in increasing the number of drivers. It is completely unacceptable, and we are in the course of correcting it.
Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to amend the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1989 and thus to ensure that the full suite of maritime legal powers currently available in relation to ships is also available, where applicable, to regulate hovercraft operating in the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords will wish to know that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered a draft of the order before it was laid and then gave informal pre-laying approval. After the draft order was laid on 1 July, it was formally cleared by the Joint Committee in its Thirty-second Report of Session 2024-25. Likewise, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee formally cleared the draft order as an instrument not drawn to the special attention of the House in its 32nd Report of Session 2024–25. Prior to this, the MCA responded to preliminary enquiries from the committee’s clerk to the satisfaction of the committee.
The background to the order is that the United Kingdom currently has one commercial hovercraft operation comprising two hovercraft which operate in in-shore waters between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. Those hovercraft are regulated as high-speed craft and comply fully with the existing relevant legislation.
The principal piece of legislation governing hovercraft is the Hovercraft Act 1968. The Act enables Orders in Council to be made to bring hovercraft within the scope of any relevant corresponding ship requirements under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. This is because hovercraft operate at sea in the same way as ships.
Using the powers in the 1968 Act, an order was originally made in 1989—the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1989—and this is the basis on which current relevant ship requirements are applied to hovercraft. This new order, if approved, will amend the 1989 order to make it possible in future to apply relevant legislation made in or under the 1995 Act to hovercraft as it already applies to ships.
We intend to make this order now because, for the purpose of extending the current Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations in November 2025, it is necessary to ensure that, in relation to all possible future hovercraft operations, the department will be able to charge fees for regulating hovercraft in the same way that it charges fees for regulating other types of ships. The statutory instrument will contain powers, through the use of provision for ambulatory reference, to ensure that, where necessary, legislation for hovercraft can keep pace with changes to the corresponding legislation covering ships.
This order includes provision relating to safety requirements, pollution prevention measures and inquiries and investigations into ship casualties, ensuring that hovercraft will remain subject to the same modern regulatory standards as ships where this is necessary. This supports consistency, safety, the protection of the marine environment and growth across maritime operations. The order also updates some provision in the existing 1989 order to bring it up to current drafting standards.
Although the department considers that there is no gap in legal powers in respect of the existing hovercraft operation in the United Kingdom because that operation is regulated under the legislation governing high-speed craft, the department nevertheless acknowledges that the existing 1989 order has fallen behind in its alignment with current regulations for ships and considers it appropriate to take steps to resolve this. This order will ensure that the department’s ability properly to regulate future hovercraft operations in the United Kingdom is not impeded by regulations designed for a previous generation of craft.
Since the existing 1989 order was made, it has been amended twice to align it more closely with requirements for ships. As well as introducing the power to enable the department to charge fees fully in line with the fees structure for ships, this order, if approved, will also update provisions for safety regulations and casualty investigations. Notably, the order will also update the pollution prevention provisions when it comes to the availability of powers for the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by sewage and garbage, oil, liquid chemicals, dangerous goods, harmful substances and air emissions.
The order also makes specific provision to apply the ambulatory reference powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. This will mean that, where there is provision in regulations for ambulatory reference to ship requirements, and where those ship requirements are applied to hovercraft by this order, the ambulatory reference provision will also cover those requirements as they apply to hovercraft. This will, in turn, ensure that the relevant legislation for hovercraft will keep pace with international standards in the same way as it does for ships, ensuring that safety and pollution prevention standards are maintained and that there is a level playing field for UK industry and international competitors.
Before concluding, I would like to mention two further points. There was no public consultation, simply because this order does not by itself impose requirements on the public or businesses. Similarly, this order does not represent a change in policy but merely ensures that all relevant existing maritime powers for ships are also available for hovercraft in future.
In conclusion, I have highlighted the importance of this Order in Council in ensuring that hovercraft operating in the United Kingdom are subject to the same regulatory regime as ships and that the department has appropriate powers to ensure compliance with relevant safety and pollution prevention standards. I therefore beg to move.
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 our maritime legislation remains coherent and fit for purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, spoke eloquently about the varied use of hovercraft other than in the circumstances in which they are currently principally used for marine purposes. My assurance is that these regulations cover the use of hovercraft in the sea and near the sea; the use of them on land is outside the scope of this legislation. I will write to him further about what I can tell him about the use of hovercraft on land. Of course, we have to, and should, take proper account of their use in commercial service in the remaining service within which they operate. It is important, therefore, that the regulations are up to date. The intention is to keep them up to date in order that that service can continue for as long as possible.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, gave us a very clear understanding of the history of hovercraft. He referred to two serious accidents, which is, of course, the reason why these regulations should be kept up to date and that the hovercraft in service that the public are currently using are properly regulated.
We do not intend to withdraw the order, because it is necessary to ensure that we have continuous and proper regulation of hovercraft. This order is the means of doing that.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked about the fee calculation. The fees are calculated at a cost recovery level. There are no new fees or increases to fees. There would be full consultation before there were to be any new or increased fees. I believe that answers the point raised by the noble Lord.
As I said, there was no consultation because there was no material difference, but the department is in constant discussion with the operators of the remaining hovercraft service—principally, as noble Lords may know, about the controversy over the level and quality of all services to the Isle of Wight.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister mid flow. He very kindly suggested that he would write to me. I know that the maritime regulations are narrow, as he said, in that, according to this, they cover the operation of the hovercraft only on the sea or, presumably, on water. But a lot of the hovercraft now deployed, particularly military and others, combine running on water, land, across mud and across ice. That is the whole joy of the air cushion. They do not run on roads, so we cannot talk about Road Traffic Acts or anything like that. It is of great interest to me to know how these regulations are applied, particularly in a multi-use case such as that or, indeed, where they never go near water. That is what I am puzzled about. I realise that this measure is not about that, and I do not want to spoil it like that, but if the Minister could ask officials and so on to write to me about that, I would be so grateful.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a valued point, and I will write to him fully. The intention of this order is only to cope with their maritime use and the marginal use of the slipway at each side of the Solent. I will write to the noble Lord separately about his valuable point, because it is clear that some regulation ought to apply. But I am assured that the intention of the order is to regulate these craft in respect of their use on and absolutely near the sea, on the slipways. So I completely understand his point. I will write to him as fully as I am able about what applies in the circumstances in which those craft are used on land.
Suffice it to say that, although safety and other environmental protections are absolutely needed, the primary intention of the order is to continue to regulate hovercraft in public service—on the remaining public service in which they are used—in an up-to-date manner. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to two serious incidents over the course of the years, and I am sure that noble Lords would agree with me that it is absolutely essential that the regulations are kept in order so that, were there to be any such incident, it would be properly dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised the question of ambulatory reference. I am not able to tell him whether this applies anywhere else, but I handily have some remarks about ambulatory reference in this particular circumstance. It is a reference in domestic legislation to an international instrument that is interpreted as a reference to the international instrument as modified from time to time and not simply the version of the instrument that exists at the time that the domestic legislation is made.
The Deregulation Act 2015 gave a power, through an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 by inserting new Section 306A, to include ambulatory references in domestic maritime legislation implementing international agreements—namely, ones not derived from the European Union. Using ambulatory references in merchant shipping legislation is a useful means of ensuring that secondary legislation gives full effect to future technical amendments to existing international maritime conventions that are adopted by the International Maritime Organization—IMO—and that the UK has already implemented. These include, but are not limited to, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973. These conventions are regularly updated.
It is to the benefit of the UK shipping industry to have a mechanism whereby domestic shipping legislation can remain up to date with the international standards. It maintains an international level playing field and ensures that UK shipping complies with the requirements of any other International Maritime Organization member state to which that UK shipping travels.
Although ambulatory reference provision in domestic law allows future amendments to international conventions to be incorporated automatically into domestic law, the United Kingdom will nevertheless be able to continue to scrutinise and, if necessary, object to proposed changes in the international arena in the International Maritime Organization and assess their impact well before any amendment is due to come into force, which will inform decision-making.
United Kingdom industry and worker stakeholders will also be involved at the stage that the United Kingdom negotiating strategy is formulated, and they will be able to influence it. Some principal stakeholders representing industry and workers are affiliated to non-government international organisations, which have been granted consultative status at the IMO and make substantial contributions to the work of the IMO, contributing sector knowledge, insight and expertise.
If an amendment is objected to by the United Kingdom, it will come into force internationally. The Secretary of State will make amending secondary legislation to prevent that amendment coming into force domestically. An amendment that is accepted will, before coming into force in UK law, be publicised by means of a parliamentary Statement to both Houses of Parliament and the subject of guidance issued by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would not want the UK’s shipping industry to be burdened by the failure to comply with the IMO. I believe that the statement I made in respect of ambulatory reference deals with the necessary scrutiny, both to amendments that are objected to by the United Kingdom and to those that are accepted.
I have attempted, at least, to deal with the points raised by noble Lords this afternoon. This order is necessary to ensure that hovercraft remain subject to the same safety and pollution prevention requirements as ships, where applicable. It strengthens our maritime regulatory regime and ensures consistency across vessel types. I will write to the noble Lord on the subject that he requests further information on—I am very happy to do so. I hope that noble Lords have found this informative and that they will join me in supporting these measures.
Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill ExcerptsFriday 5th September 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill 2024-26 View all Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that this short but crucial Bill has come before your Lordships’ House, and I join all noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for bringing it forward. I am pleased to confirm that she has the full support of the Government. I thank all noble Lords for their comments in the debate and for their support. It was particularly pleasing to hear from so many noble Lords who are members of the space committee.
Before I outline why the Government are fully supportive of the Bill, I shall say a few words about the recent passing of Frank Strang MBE, the driving force behind SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands—the UK’s first fully licensed vertical spaceport—who died at the age of 67. He was a passionate supporter of the UK launch programme and a real force of nature. His loss is particularly poignant as we move ever closer to the UK’s first vertical launch from SaxaVord spaceport. On behalf of the Government, I acknowledge his significant contribution and pass on my deepest sympathies to his family and colleagues. He will be dearly missed.
As noble Lords will be aware, Glasgow builds more small satellites than anywhere else outside California, and the UK is now the second most attractive destination for commercial space investment after the United States. This Government have made it clear that growth is vital to rebuilding the UK and supporting high-tech jobs, which unlocks investment and improves living standards across the country. The space sector, as noble Lords have heard, is hugely valuable to the UK’s economy. It is worth over £18.9 billion and directly employs more than 52,000 people. It supports over 126,000 jobs across the supply chain, and at least £346 billion of UK GDP is supported by satellite services such as navigation, meteorology, communications and earth observation.
It is now possible to launch satellites from UK spaceports rather than relying solely on overseas spaceports to launch UK-built satellites into orbit. In January 2023, Virgin Orbit conducted a historic first launch from the UK from Spaceport Cornwall, and, as noble Lords have heard, in December 2024, SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands became the UK’s first licensed vertical launch spaceport.
This year we hope to witness the UK’s first vertical launch by German company Rocket Factory Augsburg, with more to follow. The Government are investing in new launch companies such as Orbex, which has built factories in Scotland, creating hundreds of new jobs, ready to take advantage of the new opportunities that the Government have created. Other launch operators such as Skyrora, a UK company based again in Glasgow, are also thriving. Skyrora has indicated that it will conduct its first suborbital launch from the UK in the near future.
The UK space industry already supports an industrial base of over 1,500 space companies. It provides high-skill, high-quality jobs across the UK, with over 77% of employees holding at least a primary degree. Building on the success of the UK space sector, the Government will continue to support business through a stable policy environment, strengthening our economic institutions and giving investors the certainty that they need to fuel growth. The Government recognise the important contribution that the space sector makes to ordinary people’s daily lives. It is important that the UK builds on the current successes of a thriving and dynamic space sector.
We will ensure, through the measures that this Government is taking to deliver growth, that the UK becomes a leading provider of commercial small satellite launch in Europe by 2030. To achieve our ambition, the Government continue to support spaceports and launch operators to grow new UK markets for small satellite launch and suborbital spaceflight.
The Government are committed to making improvements to the Space Industry Act 2018 and the Space Industry Regulations to ensure that our legal framework and regulations remain effective and internationally competitive, and the Government recognise that the question of liability and insurance is of utmost concern to the space sector.
I will turn to a number of points made by noble Lords in the debate, if I may. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, asked about encouraging global investment in the space sector. We are exploring financial tools, incentives and market access schemes that promote sustainable activities and encourage self-investment and inward investment, and that support a level playing field for UK companies. She referred to the resignation of my noble friend Lady Gustafsson for family reasons; I or her successor will write further to the noble Baroness about the points she raised.
A number of noble Lords raised the regional benefits to the UK in respect of Scotland, Cornwall and London, in both academic and business terms. The Government strongly support development of the space industry for precisely those reasons. It has regional and national consequences.
Noble Lords also raised the question of the merger of the UK Space Agency with DSIT’s space directorate from 1 April 2026. I am extraordinarily grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for his very optimistic explanation of what seems to us to be an efficiency move to cut duplication without curtailing activities. As he says, bringing the activities together will be more efficient and get more done quicker and more easily. I thank him for his contribution in that respect, which was more elegant than the note I was given on the subject in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised a number of questions, not all of which I have the dexterity and speed to answer through technological means currently. One of the points he raised was on the transfer of risk and the possibility that, risk having been transferred, operators would behave in a negligent or non-compliant manner. The answer is that the cap will not apply if that is the case. The Government are comfortable that these arrangements are the right thing to do. In fact, the space industries have been asking for them for some time.
The noble Lord asked about operators certified by Order in Council, the public liability of such operators and so forth. Currently, there are no Orders in Council in place with third countries such as the US. Before such a future order were to be considered, we would want to assure ourselves that the country in question had a regulatory framework and licensing structure comparable to our own. Hypothetically, if the UK were to enter into such an arrangement, the other country in question would still be jointly and severally liable with the UK, under the UN liability convention, for any damage caused. We would therefore anticipate any arrangement between the UK and another country to make provision for financial liability. The UK legislation would still require the operator to indemnify the UK Government against any claim for damage or loss against the Government arising from the operator’s activities.
The industry has made it clear that holding unlimited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK spaceflight industry. It has advised that it is impossible to obtain insurance for an unlimited amount, and therefore impossible to obtain insurance that would provide full coverage of their liability to indemnify Government and their liability to uninvolved third parties.
Furthermore, potential liabilities of safe spaceflight are not easily quantifiable. If government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors would look instead to more favourable regulatory regimes in other countries, where Governments share the risks involved by limiting an operator’s liability or by offering a state guarantee, such as in the US or France. As the noble Baroness has explained, there are powers in the Space Industry Act to limit a spaceflight operator’s liability when carrying out spaceflight activities from the UK.
The 2018 Act enables commercial spaceflight activities, which include launching a spaceflight—operating a satellite in orbit, for example—and other activities, such as the operation of a spaceport and management of a range to be carried out under a licence in the United Kingdom. The Act sets out the broad licensing and regulatory framework for carrying out such activities and is underpinned by more detailed provisions in the Space Industry Regulations 2021.
The 2018 Act currently provides powers to the regulator to specify a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability in their licence, but the Act does not make it mandatory. Currently, Section 12(2) of the Act provides that:
“An operator licence may specify a limit on the amount of the licensee’s liability under section 36”.
Current government policy is that regulators should use these powers and specify a limit on operator liability and the licence so that no operator will face unlimited liability.
The Government fully support the Bill for two key reasons. It is consistent with our policy that all spaceflight operator licences should have a limit on liability. Therefore, it will not impose any additional liability or risk on UK taxpayers compared with the current policy. The Government also recognise the value that industry places on having legislative certainty on this matter.
The space sector continually expresses its concerns about the use of the word “may” in Section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act. I am therefore grateful to the noble Baroness for the Bill, which, by amending Section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act, will meet a key request from the sector. We fully support the Bill.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill ExcerptsThursday 24th July 2025
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-II(c) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (24 Jul 2025)
Lord Whitty (Lab)
That is true at present, but we are about to invent a new system of regulation of the total water system, which must have some interface with the planning system that we are referring to in this Bill. It may not be in this clause, but somewhere in the Government’s mind this should be an issue to address.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the first three amendments in this group seek to ensure that the fees charged by the prescribed bodies to highways authorities under the Highways Act 1980 are not excessive, that the level of fees charged does not cause highways authorities financial hardship, and that the regulations detail financial mechanisms and arrangements to support highways authorities in meeting any charges that may be forthcoming under Clause 29. I welcome the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Grayling, raising points related to the public purse. The ability of organisations to plan and fund resources accordingly is important to the successful implementation of these reform measures.
Clause 29 is an enabling power that allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales to make provision for, through regulations, the charging of fees for services provided to support Highways Act 1980 applications. I underscore that Clause 29 is intended only to allow prescribed bodies to charge fees on a cost-recovery basis. Its implementation, through supporting regulations, will not allow them to make a profit. The ability to recover reasonable costs will support the capacity and capability of specified public bodies. This in turn will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process.
As in other infrastructure consenting regimes where cost-recovery principles have been introduced, the regulations will be used to set out that fees may not exceed the costs reasonably incurred in providing the relevant services. The clause states that the regulations may make provision in respect of
“what may, and may not, be taken into account in calculating the amount charged”.
This provides a satisfactory basis on which to achieve the intention of the amendment. As part of stakeholder engagement, the Government will rightly continue to engage to understand the potential financial implications for highways authorities, prior to introducing regulations. The Government believe that, taken together, our commitments to produce statutory guidance alongside the regulations will ensure that the fees charged by prescribed bodies are done only on a cost-recovery basis and will provide appropriate flexibility in the light of changing circumstances to review and adjust fees where necessary and justified.
In respect of transparency, local authorities are already under a duty to maintain a system of internal audit and to appoint external auditors to audit their accounts annually. Government departments and their non-departmental public bodies in England are audited by the National Audit Office on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The Welsh Government and their non-departmental public bodies in Wales are audited by Audit Wales on behalf of the Auditor-General for Wales. The department allocates capital funding to local highways authorities so that they can most effectively spend this funding on maintaining and improving their respective networks based upon their local knowledge, circumstances and priorities. It is therefore for the respective highways authorities to determine how best to spend this funding to fulfil their statutory duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980.
Precedent from other regimes with cost-recovery principles directs that the matters identified in the proposed amendments can be satisfactorily addressed through secondary legislation and guidance. In so doing, that will provide suitable flexibility for the operation of a cost-recovery regime in the event of changing circumstances.
The points proposed in the noble Lord’s Amendment 53F are important. It is the intention, as in other transport-consenting regimes with cost recovery, that they will be addressed through secondary legislation. The regulations will, among other things, explain how fees should be calculated and when fees can and cannot be charged, as well as specify which bodies can charge fees.
I turn finally to Amendment 53M. Clause 40 is an enabling power that allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales to make provision through regulations to charge fees for services provided to support Transport and Works Act applications. As in other infrastructure-consenting regimes, where cost-recovery principles have been introduced, the regulations will be used to set out that fees must not exceed the costs reasonably incurred in providing the relevant services. These regulations will detail not only the bodies that will be able to recover fees but the basis on which fees should be calculated. The regulations will also consider circumstances in which fees may or may not be charged and when these fees may be waived or reduced.
Taken together, the Government believe that our commitments to produce statutory guidance alongside regulations will ensure that fees charged by prescribed bodies are done only on a cost-recovery basis and provide appropriate flexibility in the light of changing circumstances to review and adjust fees where necessary and justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked what the prescribed bodies are. I am happy to write to him to set out which bodies the Government have in mind. The sorts of services that might be included are, for example, providing advice on significant adverse effects on the environment and mitigating those effects. The Environment Agency might, for example, provide advice on surface water flood risk from a new highway and how to mitigate it.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, referred to punitive charges in certain circumstances. While I sympathise greatly with the idea that all public bodies should behave in a timely and proper manner, I am not entirely sure that punitive charges ought to be set out in an arrangement that seeks just to make the system work better.
Lord Grayling (Con)
It may be that this is not the right vehicle for this, but most local authorities do not have the resource to inspect works carried out by utility companies, for example. As a result, the works tend to deteriorate faster than they should do. Putting in place a punitive regime to enable a local authority to apply fines would provide additional resource for extra inspections. That is something that, in hindsight, I wish I had been able to do and which the current Government could do.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and I am very sympathetic to his point. He is quite right. He and I both know that, on many occasions, reinstatement works are done badly and do not last long. The recovery of inspection charges to find that out is reasonable; punitive charges beyond those levied for work reasonably incurred are probably not reasonable. This may not quite be the vehicle to do it, but I have every sympathy with what the noble Lord is saying. As he probably does, I inspect pavements and roads almost daily and despair at their condition.
I will deal with my noble friend Lord Liddle’s point on Amendment 71 when we get there, even though he will probably be in transit to somewhere else. I will take away the points about run-off water, which were debated by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and reflect on the extent to which they are covered by these amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling these amendments and appreciate his interest in these clauses. However, I ask that he withdraws Amendment 53C.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on the deftness with which he developed a debate on charging fees into one about charging his electric vehicle. It demonstrates the indulgence of your Lordships that he could get away with that for the whole length of a speech. Well done is what I would like to say to him.
In the light of the Minister’s clear assurances at the Dispatch Box that these genuine concerns, which are not mentioned in the Bill, will be dealt with satisfactorily through secondary legislation—
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, before I turn to Amendment 53G, I will reflect on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at the end of the previous group. I will, of course, write to him about the question of the general fund versus the highway fund. He reflected on the deftness of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in turning his amendment to charging electric cars, but I have some sympathy as the noble Lord will be travelling on Avanti on a Thursday afternoon.
Amendment 53G seeks to require
“strategic highways companies to undertake a minimum 12-week consultation with neighbouring highway authorities, local planning authorities, and”
relevant
“combined mayoral authorities before making trunk road designation orders”.
I welcome the reasoning behind the noble Lord’s amendment and note that the existing legislation makes some provision in respect of these matters—most notably, in parts II and III of Schedule 1 to the Highways Act 1980, which set out consultation requirements in respect of every council in whose area the proposed highway order relates.
The noble Lord’s amendment could introduce an additional and unnecessary administrative burden on those neighbouring local authorities that are not directly affected by a proposed order but would necessarily be directly consulted by National Highways. Mandating engagement risks diverting resources away from the core task of delivering vital infrastructure and could lead to delays.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is an ingenious argument on the part of the Minister, but I have never come across, and I may say that he has never come across, a consultation that mandates a response from a consultee who has nothing to say.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
We will differ slightly on the interpretation. I think that I agree with him.
Furthermore, imposing a 12-week minimum consultation period would introduce rigidity that would have the consequence of significantly slowing down the delivery of transport infrastructure projects. It would be contrary to the purpose of Clause 31, which is designed to make consultation more efficient while maintaining necessary safeguards.
Amendment 53H, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposes to amend the notice period from 30 days to 28 days. He did not detain us long, and neither will I. The purpose of this is to reduce it from six weeks. I note his comparison with the Planning Act. The Government’s proposal of 30 days seems, to the Government at least, to strike a good balance in this respect. That is where we propose to leave the matter.
Amendment 53I, tabled by the noble Lord, seeks to write into primary legislation that the Secretary of State must publish the notice of making a highway order and the confirmation of a highway scheme within seven days, along with the related documentation. Currently, notices are dated on the day they are published. The amendment would not have the effect of speeding up that part of the process. I appreciate the noble Lord’s interest in this clause and the intentions behind the amendments, but I ask him not to move his amendment.
The noble Lord has given notice of his intention to oppose Clause 34 standing part of the Bill. The clause contains an enabling power that allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales the power to move model clauses from legislation into guidance to make the Transport and Works Act process more efficient for applicants. The model clauses are intended to streamline the delivery of Transport and Works Act orders. They set out standardised provisions for applicants and other stakeholders to consider in the preparation of applications. They can currently be amended only through secondary legislation, so moving them into guidance will allow these helpful guiding provisions to be updated on a more responsive basis via a more efficient process. This supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport laws, ensuring that we have a more efficient legal framework. I urge the noble Lord not to oppose the clause standing part.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister did much less well that time round than he did on the previous debate. At least on the previous debate he said that the issues that I had raised would be dealt with one way or another in secondary legislation. Here he is moving into government blank wall approach: nothing can be changed. None the less, given the relative triviality of this part of the Bill and the fact that it does nothing whatever to promote growth but tidies up a few things here and there—that is all from the bottom of a bureaucrat’s desk—I am happy at this stage to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
This amendment seeks to provide safeguards in legislation to implement powers of temporary possession under the Highways Act 1980. Of course, that Act already contains powers covering the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in and over land. Clause 33 would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise temporary possession.
We are introducing this power because currently in the Highways Act there is no mechanism for the temporary possession and use of land through means of compulsion. Where land is required only on a temporary basis, if access to such land cannot be achieved by agreement with the landowners, the highways authority will seek powers of compulsory acquisition to enable it to use the land. Powers of compulsory acquisition are disproportionate to the needs of highways authorities that need to access the land only temporarily. This measure will offer a more proportionate route, aid land negotiations and provide legal protection to landowners that they will regain their land following the carrying out of works.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, raised the definition of “temporary”. This is not defined in legislation. It has the meaning of lasting for only a limited period and not permanently. This provides flexibility to the order-making authority and landowner when considering the nature of the powers. He is right that the power would not always be used, because if the land could be temporarily used in another way, the relevant public authority would use that instead.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised some very important points on compulsory acquisition of land and rights over land. These matters are already embedded within the existing compulsory purchase mechanism that underpins not only the Highways Act 1980 but other infrastructure consenting regimes. For example, land compensation is calculated in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1961. The legislation sets out the mechanism by which compensation might be calculated and, in the case of dispute, the mechanism for seeking resolution. A suite of published guidance exists to support these established mechanisms. The Highways Act 1980 therefore already embeds an existing and well-founded mechanism for consideration of compulsory acquisition of rights in and over land. The clause would not amend this but simply make it explicit that it applies to powers of temporary possession and occupation, as well as powers to permanently acquire land.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord would surely agree that those provisions do not cover one of the questions that must arise in the case of temporary possession of land, which is the condition in which you are obliged to return it. Since the permanent acquisition of land by compulsory purchase does not contemplate that it will ever be returned, there will not be any provisions that cover that. This must be another one of the issues. In what condition are you required to return it? That is also addressed in one of my amendments. Surely the Minister cannot claim that prior legislation explicates and resolves all that.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Since he asked the question, I will write to him about how the condition of the returning land is to be dealt with. In the meantime, I kindly ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but on that point, Section 252 of the Highways Act allows for a counter notice from somebody where rights over their land have been compulsorily acquired to seek to have their interest in the land purchased. I wonder whether the Government might consider whether the temporary possession of land might also reasonably give rise to an opportunity for a landowner to seek that the land be acquired on a permanent basis.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for that point. He makes a very valid point, and we will go away and consider it. I thank him very much for raising it. I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I regret to say that the Minister has confirmed one’s worst fears about this clause—that it has created something wholly new and unprecedented and has done so without proper safeguards and without being properly embedded in a piece of legislation that would invite appropriate scrutiny. Rather, it is in a very short clause in a Bill that appears to be about something else. He appears to be saying that, but I have a suspicion from what the noble Lord has said that, actually, something else might be going on: those who have drafted this clause have simply got muddled about the difference between acquiring rights over land, such as way leaves and so forth—necessary for the purpose of construction—and actually acquiring the land itself. Indeed, it is notable that, in the Minister’s response, he gave no reason and no examples as to why it should ever be necessary to acquire the land outright rather than to use the existing provisions available to those who can exercise compulsory purchase powers.
In all candour and friendliness, I suggest to the noble Lord that he consider very carefully whether this clause is necessary—and, indeed, whether it actually achieves what it was intended to achieve in the first place or goes way beyond it. It is certainly the case that, if an amendment is not tabled by the Government at the next stage of consideration of this Bill, it will be the subject of a very significant and lengthy debate as a result of amendments tabled by this Bench. In the meantime, I would be grateful for your Lordships’ permission to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for setting out so succinctly the choices for the routes by which infrastructure projects might be pursued. The objective of the Bill is to deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for infrastructure, because a failure to build enough infrastructure is constraining economic growth and threatening the economy, climate targets and energy security. There is a strong purpose in this whole suite of amendments. In this case, it is not intended to withdraw the right of individual citizens to take action; it is designed to deal with objections to transport infrastructure projects more proportionately. Sometimes, those objections will necessitate a public inquiry. On other occasions, however, an exchange of correspondence may achieve the same goal but quicker, cheaper and more efficiently. All objections will continue to be decided entirely on the merits of the arguments put forward. It does not mean less scrutiny but it is designed to speed up the Transport and Works Act process.
Currently, if an objection that is better than frivolous or trivial is raised through an application under the Act by a statutory objector—that is, an affected local authority or landowner—a public inquiry or hearing must be held, even if the objection is deemed to lack substance. This can result in a costly and lengthy public inquiry even where objections clearly lack merit. Instead, it is proposed that a public inquiry or hearing be held only when an objection by a statutory objector is considered serious enough to merit such treatment. A streamlined process for considering objections saves time and costs for applicants and objectors, but a proportionate objection process will still remain, ensuring that objections are given due attention and decisions communicated to all parties.
On Amendment 53K—
Lord Moylan (Con)
Before the noble Lord moves to Amendment 53K, what does he understand, and what should noble Lords and members of the public understand, by the term “serious enough”?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
We have to get ourselves into a position where it is possible to get schemes to move forward based on a consideration of the objections and whether they can be dealt with by means other than a public inquiry. It is evident from how the processes work at the moment that delays can be and are being incurred. Of course the definition needs to be fleshed out in due course, but the Bill seeks to streamline the whole process by introducing another bar into it. The Government have chosen the definition
“serious enough to merit such treatment”
to define what that is.
On Amendment 53K, the Government consider that procedural matters such as providing written reasons for a decision on whether to hold a public inquiry are best dealt with in guidance or secondary legislation. By reducing the current unnecessary bureaucracy or disproportionate process, this clause will help support a faster transport consenting process.
Amendment 53L would ensure that costs may be imposed on a person only when that person has acted maliciously or unreasonably during a public inquiry process. Clause 37 introduces to the Transport and Works Act a new power enabling an inspector conducting a public inquiry to make decisions on relevant cost claims rather than the Secretary of State, as is currently required. Department for Transport Circular 3/94, which governs how claims for costs during a Transport and Works Act inquiry are handled, makes explicitly clear what constitutes unreasonable behaviour and the circumstances in which it can be applied. Guidance of this type is also used for the Planning Act 2008 regime and appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspectors conducting inquiries on Transport and Works Act applications will continue to apply the circular when considering costs. The intent of the proposed amendment is achieved through existing means.
I thank the noble Lord for the amendments he has tabled but, for the reasons outlined, ask that he does not press them.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I think many noble Lords—I am one of them—have general sympathy with the Government’s ambition to remove unnecessary obstacles to the approval of infrastructure projects, which is why one has tried to be as indulgent as possible in bringing forward amendments to their clauses. But in this case, it simply will not stand. It is an entirely circular definition to say that an inquiry will be held if the objection is serious enough to merit an inquiry. It is entirely self-defining; it tells us nothing whatever. It does not tell us anything objective about the seriousness required, as one of my amendments would set out. The Government will have to come back to this because, as it stands, it is completely unsustainable.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, I have a question for the Minister. He said the definition needs to be fleshed out in due course. Under what powers in what Act will that fleshing out be done?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his interjection. I will write to him after this Committee and set out some more detail.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, makes an interesting point. I will not replicate the intention of Clause 38 because that is already pretty clear to the House. However, I am not sure that he is entirely correct in saying that what he describes as a DCO is a wholly bad thing because, in practice, it is sometimes a very good thing that the parties sort themselves out before the inspector starts the inquiry, rather than prolonging the inquiry by sorting themselves out while the inspector is sitting.
It is true that the DCO has the time limit that the noble Lord describes, whereas the Transport and Works Act does not. The Government’s view is that that leads to uncertainty in the consenting process and that introducing statutory timeframes will provide increased certainty to stakeholders, which has been valued in other transport consenting regimes. It will introduce greater accountability to the decision-makers. It should speed up the consenting process and should allow applicants to be better prepared post consent. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to oppose Clause 38 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I do not intend to oppose Clause 38 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the Bill seeks to deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for infrastructure. It is quite clear that there are a whole range of measures within the Bill that seek to do that, and I think the general clarity of the intention of the Bill is absolutely there.
But I am going to save your Lordships quite a lot of time because, having said that and having listened very carefully to the contributions made by a series of noble Lords just now, I can say that the Government are not looking to reduce heritage protections through this clause. We are seeking to streamline the process of decision-making by creating a one-stop shop; it would sometimes be the case in the current regime that separate government departments would still need to issue separate consents.
In the light of what noble Lords have seriously said—with some passion, conviction and a great deal of clarity—I commit to go away and reflect on the arguments raised. I cannot say what happened following the discussion in the other place, but I can commit to considering all the arguments raised. We will return to this subject, bearing in mind what I have heard this afternoon. In the meantime, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
This may be a first for me in this House to have a Minister listening to the arguments and thinking, “Maybe this needs further thought and consideration”. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that today, because that is what Committee should be about: we make the arguments and question what the Government are proposing, and the Minister listens carefully and, instead of defending the indefensible, says, “Good points have been made, and I am going to go away and seriously think about them”. I thank him most heartily for doing so. It has been a really thoughtful, considered and expert debate from people who have had experience in government on the same issues and have raised—more eloquently than me—the issues that are pertinent to this clause.
None of us here wants to stand in the way of the development of important infrastructure. That is not what this is about. It is not about preserving our heritage in aspic—as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said—but finding new life for our heritage assets and respecting them. It is about having that balance between the heritage that people in this country really value, on the one hand, and the importance of having a growth in infrastructure on the other. At the minute, I think the Government have that balance wrong. I very much thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. I really look forward to the Minister coming back and helping us with this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, again I return to the Dispatch Box not to object as a matter of principle to what the Government are proposing in Clause 42 but to throw a little grit, in the hope that the Government will explain the consequences of it for us and accept that it might need some moderation.
The effect of Clause 42 is that an order under the Transport and Works Act can be made that includes a marine licence without having to apply separately to the Marine Management Organisation. The concern that I have expressed in my amendment is that there appears to be no requirement in any of this for consultation with the Environment Agency, which has considerable responsibilities for much of our marine environment. Some assurance on the existing apparatus of guardianship is necessary. It is like what we discussed earlier. Keeping the guard-rails without necessarily having excessive bureaucracy is something we are sympathetic to, but losing the guard-rails altogether is much more concerning.
The Environment Agency is part of the guard-rails system for protecting our marine environment. We should like to know that it will be properly consulted and that that will be in the Bill. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I shall seek to be brief on this matter. Clause 42 allows for a single process similar to that in the Planning Act 2008, which already provides for deemed marine licences. Applicants will still need to consult the Marine Management Organisation on a Transport and Works Act order that contains a marine licence, ensuring that proper oversight remains in place.
The Marine Management Organisation’s application process includes consultation with the Environment Agency, whose representations will be given due regard during the determination process by the Secretary of State. The clause removes duplication and, therefore, streamlines the process, saving time and costs in decision-making, while maintaining the Environment Agency as a statutory consultee. It aligns the Transport and Works Act with the Planning Act 2008 process, making it simpler and quicker for transport projects that involve marine areas.
The noble Lord’s amendment would introduce a blocking power for the Environment Agency that does not exist for deemed marine licences under the equivalent provisions in the Planning Act 2008 regime. Clause 42 reduces bureaucracy, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. I appreciate the noble Lord’s interest in this clause. However, I kindly ask him to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, here we come to the odious Henry VIII provisions in the Bill, which are completely unnecessary. The Government are seeking power here to make regulations that
“may amend … an Act, or … an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, passed before the end of the session of Parliament in which this Act is passed”.
I have tabled two amendments to this clause. The first would delete “an Act” and replace it with “the Transport and Works Act”. It should be enough for the Government to be able to amend the Transport and Works Act by regulation and not have a power that extends to every Act of Parliament that exists. If that is not acceptable to the Government, then it is incumbent on the Minister to explain now, or very shortly after this debate, which Acts he intends, or might intend, to amend using these powers.
The other amendment I have relates to Clause 45(3), which says:
“Regulations under this section may include incidental, supplemental, transitional and saving provision”.
My amendment would add after “may” the word “only”, so that these changes may include “only” changes of that character. Even with those two limitations, the clause raises questions, but without them it is pretty unacceptable, and the Government need to explain what they are aiming to do. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord said, the amendments he has tabled seek to limit the making of any consequential amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992. Clause 45 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments; namely, changes to legislation that may be required when changes to the Transport and Works Act as a result of Clauses 34 to 44 are added to the statute book. The power cannot be used to implement changes in policy, nor to make amendments for reasons unrelated to Clauses 34 to 44. Its purpose is simply to ensure consistency across the statute book.
If any changes were needed to primary legislation, already existing or made in this parliamentary Session, the relevant regulations would need approval from both Houses. If changes were needed to secondary legislation only, the negative procedure would apply.
The Transport and Works Act interacts with a number of pieces of primary legislation. Therefore, limiting amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992 could hinder the implementation of Clauses 34 to 44. The inclusion of this power is a practical and reasonable step to ensure the most efficient legal framework. I will endeavour to write to the noble Lord to set out examples of the legislation that might need to be altered. In the meantime, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Pending receipt of the Minister’s letter and saving our position for Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief because there are government amendments in this group. Their effect is going to be the same as what I set out to achieve; namely, that it would be interesting to hear what the Government imagine they are going to achieve by making these changes so that we can consider properly what the effect is likely to be. Since the Government are likely to do that themselves in moving their amendments, it is hardly necessary for me to press the point at this stage. I beg to move, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in support of his amendments.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendments 56 and 359 relate to Clause 46. Harbour revision and empowerment orders under the Harbours Act 1964 extend or modify ports’ statutory powers. The Marine Management Organisation currently charges fees for harbour orders in England and for the reserved trust port of Milford Haven. Elsewhere in Wales and in Scotland, fees are the responsibility of the devolved Ministers. These fees are currently charged at flat rates in advance, an approach that does not align with marine licence applications. The current system does not accurately reflect the complexity or time required for each application, especially for works applications, and does not allow enough flexibility in charging, which currently leads to inefficiencies and inaccurate cost recovery and slows down application processing.
Clause 46 offers great flexibility in setting fees in relation to case work on these orders—for example, charging on the basis of actual hourly costs. The actual fee level will be subject to consultation with ports and relevant stakeholders. In line with the devolution settlement, this new, more flexible regime will be commenced by the Scottish and Welsh Governments at a time of their choosing.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove transitional provision that is no longer needed after the changes to commencement made by my amendment to clause 110.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I find myself somewhat out of temper with many noble Lords who have spoken. It would give me great pleasure to be able to say that I heartily swung behind them. I do so to some extent, but not very heartily—and with some difficulties and problems, some of which have been extremely well set out by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I have three amendments in this group—Amendments 57A, 57B and 71B—but I do not intend speak to them in detail. Rather, I will draw, to some extent, on my own experience. My noble friend Lord Lucas said that, although this is not simple, it is not difficult either. However, then he went on to explain that, in practice, it really is very difficult.
At one stage, I was in charge of the roads in Kensington and Chelsea, one of the places in London with the greatest demand for on-street parking, because very few people have an off-street place to park their car. It is not terribly different in many other parts of London, especially inner London. I was approached by a Member of your Lordships’ House, who asked me whether it would be possible for the council to install an electric vehicle charging point outside his house. As it happens, we had a programme of installing such points at the council’s expense. I said that there was no difficulty at all, and that, if he wanted it, I could put it forward and it could easily happen. Not everybody welcomed electric vehicle charging points then, so it was nice to have a resident who did. However, the charging point would of course not be for his exclusive use. For him, that was not good at all; that was not at all what was wanted—in fact, his enthusiasm for the idea waned immediately.
The discussion we have had today more or less envisages that groups of families or houses will have clusters of spaces more or less outside their front door, which they may have paid for and which will be for their exclusive use. I am afraid that, if any elected local authority in London—and, I suspect, in many other cities—did that on a sufficient scale, they would eventually be lynched from the nearest lamp-post. Local authorities know that perfectly well, because this is politically a very difficult thing to do.
It also raises an issue of principle: to what extent should we encourage what is in fact the privatisation of a public asset? It is after all the public who pay for and maintain the highway, yet what is envisaged is that people will have the exclusive use of part of it for themselves. That will create very severe difficulties, which have been raised but have not been fully addressed by noble Lords in the course of this debate.
There is another point. If one puts an electric vehicle charging point next to the carriageway, the tendency—although this is not entirely true—is to mark off the bay and write, “Electric Vehicles Only”. I see that my successors in Kensington and Chelsea are not quite doing that; they are putting up signs—this might actually be more effective—politely asking, “If your car is not electric, would you mind awfully not parking next to this lamp-post?” That might achieve as much as an outright ban, because sometimes being polite to people gets their compliance more than anything else.
While we still have a large number of people, mostly people on lower incomes, who need access to an internal combustion engine car, the threat arises that they will be increasingly squeezed out of access to the public highway they are paying for in favour of middle-class people in their Teslas. It is not simply the optics but the morality of this that is highly questionable.
Some of the things that have been suggested should be done. Nothing seems more obvious to me than the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that it should be mandatory for freight depos to have electric charging points in them that can be used by electric HGVs. That sort of thing should be happening. She gave other examples of a similar character, so not everything is difficult. When you come to that interaction, particularly of cars with the pavement edge and where people park them, there are serious difficulties not only of practical local politics but of social equity.
It is very easy to think that because something is a good idea, we should all push for it, make it happen and just shove the obstacles to one side. I do not mean this to be excessively critical of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I am very struck by her amendment that says we must prioritise grid electricity supply for electric charging infrastructure. “Prioritise” means to choose, to say that one thing is more important than another. My question is: prioritise over what? Prioritise over electricity supply to a new housing estate, hospital or care home? Those questions do not just vanish because one has enthusiasm for a subject; they are real choices. I think the Minister is already going a little too far in the Bill for what the public will bear. That is the thrust and gravamen of the amendments I have tabled.
Certain noble Lords, including, I regret to say, certain noble friends, have gone perhaps even further than the Minister. I am not following them in that direction. I shall do my best between now and Report to reason with them, as we normally do in the Conservative Party, so that we may present a united front of common sense and reason to this House when we return to this debate.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, follow that. The noble Lord says he is out of temper; I am out of energy, so I am going to be as brief as I can be.
The general tone of the discussion was very positive, stimulated by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Liddle—who was here earlier and has hopefully reached Preston by now. It is getting past Preston that is the difficulty on Avanti. That entirely accords with the Government’s intention, which is to promote the use of zero-emission vehicles. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her introduction, and I recognise the passion with which she has spoken on this matter—that too is entirely in accordance with the Government’s desire to move forward.
Other contributions have raised some choices about the form of zero-emission power, especially for HGVs and hydrogen. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised, in a slightly more positive way than the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, some issues that need to be resolved in these matters as we move forward.
The Government are working with local authorities to promote cross-pavement solutions, including the recently announced £25 million grant fund to encourage the installation of cross-pavement channels, plus published guidance for local authorities on this technology and charge point grant funding for residents. We recognise that cross-pavement solutions will not be suitable for all scenarios. Local highway authorities are responsible for deciding on each application, considering the needs and opinions of residents. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of other users of the pavements who need a safe and level surface, of which we should be very mindful. Local authorities will have to take account of this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, remarked, they will be held accountable if people fall over or sustain injury or damage in any way. This is an important issue of which the Government are well aware, and that is why we launched a call for evidence on this very matter on 6 May this year; we are currently considering responses.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will address these important amendments concerning water infrastructure, each of which touches on the future resilience and efficiency of our water sector. These amendments reflect a shared desire to ensure that the regulatory framework keeps pace with the demands of modern infrastructure delivery while safeguarding value for money and service quality for consumers.
Amendment 59, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, proposes to remove the size and complexity test currently embedded in water regulations. This is a timely and helpful amendment, particularly in the light of the Cunliffe review published on Monday. The review highlights that, under specified infrastructure projects regulations, this test can apply only where projects are of such scale and complexity that they risk threatening the water company’s ability to provide services and value to customers. The Government have recently signalled their intention to relax this criterion. In this context, will the Minister clarify when the Government intend to relax it by? How will they do so? Could the opportunity presented by my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment be used to implement such a relaxation? We need a regulatory environment that is more flexible and better suited to facilitating timely delivery of much-needed infrastructure projects without unnecessary procedural hurdles that can cause delays and cost overruns.
Amendments 61 and 62 relate to reservoir construction and regulation. We recognise the importance of the delivery of new reservoirs, and we acknowledge their vital role in enhancing water security and supporting our long-term infrastructure goals. While I would like to support my noble friend Lord Lucas on his Amendment 61, we have a concern about whether introducing new, possibly burdensome regulation is necessary or whether it would risk creating delays or have unintended consequences.
In contrast, Amendment 62 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, seeks to deregulate low-hazard reservoirs. We believe that this approach could streamline processes where the risk is minimal, allowing resources to be focused on the highest-risk infrastructure.
Water infrastructure is a critical national priority. In the light of these differing proposals, I ask the Minister to give the Committee a clear answer on the Government’s position. How do the Government intend new reservoirs to be built? What regulatory approach will be taken to balance safety, efficiency and the urgent need for water infrastructure? I look forward to the Minister’s response on these important matters.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, it was of course a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, introduce these amendments. He referred to the success of the Thames Tideway project, and there were a number of references to who did it. The person in charge of that project is Andy Mitchell, who has done an extraordinarily good job, so it is quite right that his name should be referred to next to the project itself.
The amendments seek to insert new clauses specific to water infrastructure. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to remove the size and complexity test from the specified infrastructure projects regulations, known as SIPR. The Government are resisting this amendment because we have already committed to reviewing the SIPR framework. That was set out in the Chancellor’s New Approach to Ensure Regulators and Regulation Support Growth policy paper, published in March 2025, which confirmed that Defra will amend the SIPR framework to help major water projects proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. It is important that the planned review goes ahead so that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry. Removing the size and complexity threshold now would pre-empt that process and risk creating a regime that does not reflect the sector’s diverse needs or long-term priorities.
We will continue to work closely with stakeholders to ensure that the specified infrastructure projects regime remains targeted and proportionate and delivers value for customers. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked by when this review will be completed, and I can assure him that it will be completed in this calendar year. I therefore thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling the amendment, but I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, to withdraw it on her behalf.
Amendment 61 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to introduce enabling regulations for milestones and enforcement for various delivery phases of all water undertakers’ reservoir proposals. The Government have already taken urgent steps to improve water security. This involves action to improve water efficiency and to reduce water company leaks alongside investing in new supply infrastructure, including new reservoirs and water transfers. We are taking action to speed up the planning process for new reservoirs. For example, we recently revised the National Policy Statement for Water Resources Infrastructure to make clear that the need for the proposed reservoirs in the water companies’ statutory management plans has been demonstrated.
Ofwat’s price review final settlement in December 2024 for the water sector has also unlocked record investment, around £104 billion of spending by water companies between 2025 and 2030. This includes £8 billion of investment to enhance water supply and manage demand, such as enabling the development of nine new reservoirs. As part of that, leakages will reduce by 17%. We have taken steps with Ofwat to improve water company oversight by increasing reporting and assurance requirements on companies’ delivery, improving protection for customers from companies failing to deliver the improvements by returning the funding to customers, and encouraging companies to deliver on time by applying time-based incentives.
The Government, as the Committee has already heard, also commissioned Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead the Independent Water Commission, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernise the water industry and deliver resilient water supplies. The Government are grateful to Sir Jon and the commission for their work and will carefully consider their findings and recommendations, including those that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to.
We will provide a full government response to the commission’s report in the autumn, setting out our priorities and timelines. The Government will introduce root and branch reform to revolutionise the water industry. Working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, the Government will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the entire system so that it is fit for decades to come. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is therefore reassured that the proposed new clause is unnecessary, and I kindly ask him not to move his amendment.
Amendment 62, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is not necessary. It is a probing amendment to encourage the consideration of measures to facilitate the construction of small reservoirs. The Government are already encouraging building both small and large reservoirs. That improves resilience to climate change, sustains food production and water security and supports economic growth.
Reservoir safety legislation does not prevent new reservoirs being constructed but does ensure that structures are well built and maintained. The streamlining of the planning system will make them quicker and easier to build in the future. However, it is important that new reservoirs do not pose flood risks for local communities by being built in the wrong locations and that existing reservoir dams are structurally safe.
Reservoirs that store water above ground level pose risks to life, property, businesses and the environment, and could cause economic disruption to local communities if the dam structure were to fail. These risks are managed through reservoir safety regulations. Reservoirs that store water below ground level do not pose the same risks and so are out of scope of the reservoir safety regulations. Current advice to farmers and landowners who wish to build reservoirs is to consider options for non-raised water storage. The Government intend to consult in the autumn on proposals to improve reservoir safety regulations, including making the requirements more tailored to the level of hazard posed and bringing some smaller raised reservoirs in scope. These proposals do not alter the need for more reservoirs, nor prevent new ones being built. They are to ensure that reservoir dams are structurally sound and that flood risks for communities down stream are effectively managed.
I appreciate the interests of noble Lords in tabling these amendments. However, for the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that the hour is late and already the two Chief Whips are conspiring to tell us that we need to rattle through.
Lord Moylan (Con)
That would be an indispensable approach, if this were to go ahead, but we are fundamentally forgetting local authorities and local planning departments in this. The arboriculturists to whom the noble Baroness refers are exactly the sort of people who should be involved and are the right source of information for this—more so than the Government. If the Government are to be involved, it should be at a very considerable distance from the whole process, offering encouragement, advice and light support rather than providing the guidance itself. Otherwise, I welcome everything else that my noble friend said and I am very happy to have a further discussion with him in due course.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for tabling this amendment. The Chief Whip on our side is no longer present, but I can hear him saying, “Get on with it”, so I shall.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion. The Government agree that planting schemes can mitigate the environmental impacts of new highways and make existing ones more pleasant. However, this amendment is not necessary as there is already relevant guidance on this matter, produced by a number of relevant stakeholders, that local highway authorities and others should have regard to. This includes the well-managed highways infrastructure code of practice, which provides guidance for local authorities on managing highway networks; the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges; the Manual for Streets; and local authorities’ own street adoption and street works guidance documents. Some local authorities go further and encourage local residents to look after street trees—including my own. When I am not in the Chamber until late at night, I am nurturing a small but growing tree in my locality by taking it a bucket of water every so often, and it will be a pleasure to do so this evening when we finish.
Planning applications for highway development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are already subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain, and we are currently consulting on the application of biodiversity net gain for nationally significant infrastructure projects, with the aim of mitigating any environmental impact. Requiring additional or new guidance would be an administrative burden and could merely duplicate the guidance that already exists, so I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister and everyone who participated in the debate; it started on a high then slowly descended. I have said many times in this Chamber that I massively respect the Minister, but I think he mentioned about five different sets of rules or guidance, and that is precisely why there should be some clear documentation that sets out the different issues and how to tackle them.
I am grateful to my own Back Benches, the Greens and the Lib Dems for their comments and support. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the perfect point that this is also about wildlife, which is often accused or neglected, and the fact that we have the 2030 targets, which we should aim for and this can play a part in that.
I am conscious of the time, but there are various things I could say to my dear and good noble friend Lord Moylan. I will take him up on the offer to engage with him. I will make three very quick points. First, while trees do not improve your driving, it is a fact that having trees on streets slows down drivers in urban areas; someone made that observation in mainland Europe, where, sadly, they have more trees than we do. It therefore improves driving, even if it does not improve the quality of the driver.
Secondly, my noble friend mentioned the issues with his mulberry bushes. That is exactly why there should be guidance on new development—that is its purpose.
Finally, I was googling frantically what sort of tree my noble friend Lord Moylan could be. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but one that I found was the great white oak. I am told that it is big and majestic in many ways, but it is also quite stubborn. I say respectfully to my noble friend: please, let us have this journey; I will come and help him clean up his mulberry bush.
For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, lane rental has worked well in London; it should be rolled out across the rest of England. National Highways should of course pick up its own litter. Street works should be guaranteed for a decent period. As ever, Conservatives have all the best ideas. I look forward to a short speech from the Minister in which he agrees.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, in respect of lane rental schemes, the Government are committed to reducing disruption from street works and improving the efficiency of our road networks. Lane rental is an important tool to help highway authorities reduce the impact of works taking place, but it is important to recognise that such schemes may not be suitable for every area. Many local authorities do not experience the level of congestion necessary to justify the administrative and financial burden of operating such a scheme. However, the Government recognise the value of empowering local leaders and that is why we have consulted on devolving approval powers for lane rentals to mayoral combined authorities. We will be publishing the results of the consultation and next steps in due course. So I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to beg leave to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for speaking to the amendment on litter. I agree with him that we must find the best way of tackling this problem. I know that the amendment has been tabled in that spirit. At present, National Highways is responsible for the collection of litter on England’s motorways, but there are other roads—trunk roads and A roads—where National Highways is responsible for the maintenance but local authorities are responsible for litter collection. The question is therefore whether we should relieve local authorities of those duties and transfer them instead to National Highways.
That sounds like a simple solution, but it is in fact a little more complicated. The collaboration methodology works well: for example, National Highways looks for opportunities to enable litter collection to take place safely when roads are closed for other reasons, such as resurfacing or maintenance. Those partnership arrangements provide the best way of tackling litter on the strategic road network, and we encourage and expect National Highways and local authorities to work closely together on them.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for tabling the amendment on extending the guarantee period following road reinstatement. He and I both recognise that high-quality reinstatement is highly desirable. It is important to note that, under the existing Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways guidance, the guarantee period begins only once the reinstatement has been completed to the required standard.
In 2023, a performance-based inspection regime was introduced that means that utility companies with higher defect or failure rates are subject to more frequent inspections and, as they pay for each inspection, this creates a strong financial incentive to maintain high standards. We are closely monitoring the recent changes in Scotland, where the guarantee period has been extended to six years, to assess whether that leads to improved standards, before considering any changes in England. For the reasons outlined, I kindly request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Liddle will now have reached the end of his journey to Carlisle, and I celebrate the noble Lords who have come on the journey for this part of the Bill by remaining in the Chamber. I wish all those who have stayed this long a happy and restful recess.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I look forward to seeing more on the rollout of the lane rental scheme to mayoral authorities, but I ask, as we do not yet have mayoral authorities right across the country, whether he could extend it to all authorities. I also look forward to the review of the practice in Scotland and hope that we will move to a five-year guarantee here. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment, which is pertinent, as has just been mentioned, given the announcements this week, including that Ofwat will be abolished. The future of water regulation is clearly in flux. We on these Benches seek clarity on the way forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise: I prematurely terminated the journey of this part of the Bill. I will seek to be very brief.
The Government are committed to ensuring effective planning, development and management of water infrastructure. To that end, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs formed an Independent Water Commission. We oppose the amendment put forth by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to transfer Ofwat’s planning, infrastructure and development functions to the Secretary of State because it would pre-empt the results of the independent review. As mentioned, we will provide a full government response to the commission’s report in the autumn, setting out our priorities and timelines, and the Government will therefore introduce root and branch reform to revolutionise the water industry. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. It was powerful. It was mistaken in not accepting the amendment, of course, but at least he put it in the context of the important work that the Government have committed to undertake. In that context, I thank him for his contribution and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 70—with the rider that I wish a well-deserved, restful and enjoyable Recess above all to the Minister, who has worked extraordinarily hard throughout this Session, and to every Member of the Committee who has been present throughout the proceedings.
Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 3 June be approved.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 July.
Train Operators’ Revenue Protection Practices Review
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the independent review of train operators’ revenue protection practices published by the Office of Rail and Road on 4 June, whether they intend to modify systems of issuing rail tickets to improve their interavailability.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, deliberate fare-dodging has no place on our railways and is being tackled, but it is vital that passengers are treated fairly and consistently. We are urgently considering the helpful and comprehensive Office of Rail and Road report, with its sensible recommendations, and will respond to it as soon as possible. In the meantime, we continue to make it easier for passengers to buy the right fare, to make tickets on an increasingly unified publicly owned railway more inter-available, and to develop plans for Great British Railways to sell tickets online.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the Minister knows that, under the new east coast main line timetable, many more passengers will rely on connecting services run by different train operators, but when they board the train, as happens when they board a train now, they are quite likely to hear an announcement saying that other operators’ tickets are not valid on this service and that they may face a penalty fare of £100. Indeed, the report to which my Question refers reveals many instances of passengers who inadvertently had the wrong ticket and were penalised. Does he recognise that this is a mess? Has he got people at work in his department trying to sort it out?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord knows as much about the December east coast main line timetable as I do now. I compliment him because he asked the flexible public sector operators to add a stop at Berwick to the weekday 1900 train to Edinburgh from King’s Cross, and they have agreed. I think that is a great thing. On a more general point, the announcements are confusing because the ticketing system is confusing. In the particular circumstances of the east coast, where LNER has made arrangements for tickets to be inter-available so that passengers at stations such as Berwick can enjoy a similar level of train service, with a change, as they do now, we will make sure that the announcements are clear enough that people are not put off making the best journey.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the first iteration of the timetable for the LNER services in question was withdrawn. As a result, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has identified, there are fewer direct services serving stations such as Darlington, Northallerton and others, meaning that more changes are to be made. Is there a role for his department to ensure, particularly given the special anniversary of the Darlington to Stockton line, that this could be revisited so that the original direct services are reinstated?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The new east coast main line timetable includes several big improvements, such as knocking over a quarter of an hour off the direct journey to Edinburgh and a service to Newcastle of three trains an hour, which is considerably in excess of the service on the Metropolitan line to Amersham. That is the objective of a railway timetable which is to serve the biggest flows with the best train service. In respect of Darlington and Northallerton, the noble Baroness knows that, in fact, Darlington will have more through-trains to London in December than it does now, as will Northallerton. Some of the other journeys will need a change, and the timetable is arranged to make the best of all those journeys while producing the benefits that I described.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, passengers are fed up with the complexity of rail fares and of the terms and conditions of tickets. When will passengers see a simpler, transparent new range of tickets ahead of Great British Railways coming into operation?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right to describe it as a mess. We are not waiting for Great British Railways. LNER’s changes to long-distance fares, which have been introduced progressively, have resulted in considerably greater passenger satisfaction with the way in which the fares are arranged now compared with before. I am expecting to see similar arrangements on the west coast main line and on Great Western in due course. I think the noble Baroness knows that we are rolling out pay-as-you-go in urban areas, as well as in London and the south-east. It is a long and complex job, and it is not helped by the fact that, fundamentally, the fares system has not changed since the railways were privatised. We are on it, and we are working hard at it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
On the west coast main line and on other routes, when Great British Railways actually happens, will it have control over the fares issued by open-access operators, or will they still be able to charge what they like for their own services?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend probably knows the answer, but I am happy to give it anyway. Open-access operators can charge what they like, and no doubt will continue to do so.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am sure this House would be reassured if the Minister himself was involved in these new practices. Can he give us an assurance that he is heavily involved and that all these new practices will mean less ticketless travel?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The long-term answer is that the railway deserves to be run by competent, professional people. The involvement of Ministers in decisions about timetables and fares is extremely unusual in world railways outside North Korea. I am doing what I am doing now because I think that changes need to be made, and we need to make them faster than we can bring in the legislation on Great British Railways. In the long term, the railways should be run by competent people to an overall government policy. That is the Government’s aim, and mine too.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, concerning those changes, the report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, from the ORR, a highly respected regulator, is a valuable piece of work on behalf of passengers. Does the Minister accept that, under the new arrangements for the railway, consulted on by the Government earlier this year, the ORR would lose those functions, vindicating the rights of passengers to a toothless passenger watchdog, and be stripped of its independent decision-making powers as to who has access to the track and what charges they pay? These decisions will be made by Great British Railways, an interested party. Is this not regulatory vandalism on the railways?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord has a point of view, but I do not agree with it. Currently, the ORR is independent. In the future, the Government’s proposals will leave it independent. It will have a slightly different role in respect of access; it will be an appeal body. Fundamentally, somebody has to be in charge of the railway and somebody has to be in charge of the timetable. He will know, because we have discussed it here before, that it is mad that a Government Minister in the end has to decide to implement a railway timetable because nobody in the railway itself has the authority to do so. He is also wrong about describing the new arrangements for passengers. In due course he will see that the passenger standards authority will have real teeth and will represent passengers’ interests.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, many stations do not seem to have properly functioning electronic gates, particularly at weekends, and people just walk through. I wonder whether it is possible to do an audit of that. While the Minister is improving the lot of travellers, could he do away with “See It. Say It. Sorted”?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Ticketless travel is a real problem. Operators have to be on their toes, because leaving gates open at times when people travel means that they will just walk through them. It is not necessarily the case that those passengers do not have tickets, but it is certainly no deterrent to people who do not have tickets. “See It. Say It. Sorted”—oh dear, I have said that now—is actually a good deterrent. We have to be mindful of the safety of people, including women and girls, on the railway. We are going to refresh it, but I am sorry to tell the noble Baroness that we are going to carry on with it, because it is the right thing to do to make everybody travelling by train feel safe.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, Trainline tells me that, if I get the 15.16 pm train home to Cardiff from London Paddington this afternoon, I could save 5p by splitting my ticket. Will my noble friend the Minister’s reforms get rid of this sort of nonsense? Can he sort that?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It needs to be sorted and it will have to be sorted, over time. I refer to my experience at Transport for London, where we radically changed the fare system and introduced pay-as-you-go and Oyster, which took several years of incremental change. Fundamentally, the noble Lord is right: if you have enough time and effort, finding a cheaper way to travel through buying multiple tickets is not the way to market an effective railway or public transport service. We need to get to a stage when that nonsense is no longer prevalent.