Electric Scooters and Electric Bicycles: Pedestrian Safety

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to introducing safeguards to protect pedestrians and the disabled when considering whether to permit additional categories of electric scooters and electric bicycles.

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

My Lords, safety is our top priority, especially for our most vulnerable road users and disabled people. There will be no new categories of e-cycles or e-scooters before the impacts on these groups have been thoroughly considered. Any new regulations will be subject to public consultation before they come into force and designed with disabled people—not for them—utilising the Government’s independent expert committee, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

There are a number of troubling features about e-scooters and e-bikes, and disagreements on solutions, including licensing, insurance, speed restrictions and better enforcement, such as the impounding of vehicles ridden on the pavement, which is my favourite. The problem is getting worse. It is a Wild West out there, with deaths, injuries and a growing fear among the disabled and elderly, not to mention the mushrooming of crime. Will the Minister ensure that early action is taken and, at the very least, could he work with the mayor and the Met to introduce much more robust action in London, where this is such a problem?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly understand the noble Baroness’s point. As far as e-scooters go, the last Government commissioned the trials in 2020 and legislation was promised in 2022 but not delivered. That trial is therefore still in force and the length of time is regrettable. A very similar Question was answered on the last sitting day before Christmas. It is a complicated area. We need to work out what the best forms of regulation are. I note her plea to me to talk to the mayor and the Metropolitan Police. Of course, the enforcement of these regulations is always a matter for chief police officers and I know that the mayor is as concerned as the Government are about this.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the design of these bikes is a real problem. At the moment, they are limited to 15 miles per hour, but hardly any of them observe it. By simple modifications, two things can happen: the speed can be increased to 30 miles per hour and, by pressing a button, they can maintain the speed without any cycling. We should really have something done about that. Along with all the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned, I have argued that cyclists should be legislated against. What is the argument for not legislating for registration marks, licensing and insurance for e-cycles, which, in 2023, killed the most people on the roads that we have ever seen?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly know that the noble Lord has a strong view on this. We had a debate in the autumn and, as I said, a Question on this before Christmas. He is right in saying that there is a limit to the legal use of pedal cycles—a maximum assisting speed of 15.5 miles per hour and a maximum power of 250 watts—and it is clear that plenty of e-cycles have been either sold or adapted that do in excess of that and, as a result, are in fact motor vehicles and should be registered, licensed, ridden and insured as such. In the end, it is up to chief police officers to enforce this. He is remarking on a subject of growing concern in our urban areas, which should be addressed by chiefs of police.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, many bikes are being imported from abroad that are illegal. Do the Government have any plans to clamp down on the illegal importation of vehicles that should not be on the road?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is right: there are plenty of imports and plenty of illegal sales of these in this country. It is a trading standards matter and there has been some action. If I leaf through these pages fast enough, I will be able to find the statistics for what we know about what has happened so far. But, of course, that is a local authority matter. In the end, we need legislation. It is a shame that it did not start with e-scooters. The Government are committed to doing something. The subject of the original Question—the effect on disabled people—is clearly of great concern and we will seek to address it.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am really grateful that the Minister just referred to disabled people. Many people in wheelchairs are finding that dockless bikes being dumped all over the pavements means that they do not just have a problem but cannot go down the street. Just before Christmas, the RNIB’s most recent survey of its members said that 47% of respondents had said that they felt unsafe on the pavements. Will the Government consider ensuring that e-scooters and e-bikes are more visually and audibly detectable? Whether or not they are illegal, they are on the pavements and causing problems. Will they also please ban dockless bikes?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly recognise the passion with which the noble Baroness speaks. Before Christmas, the Government published the English devolution White Paper, which has in it a provision for local transport authorities to be empowered to regulate on street micromobility—that is, e-bikes and e-cycle schemes—so that local areas can shape these schemes and tackle the scourge of badly parked e-cycles and e-scooters.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, as well as being potentially criminally ridden, these vehicles are also being used in the course of committing crime. In 2023-24, there were 11,000 offences recorded involving the use of e-bikes and e-scooters—a huge growth on previous years, and there is no sign of abatement. Do the Minister and his Government have a plan for curbing this epidemic?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is easy to recognise the position the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, talked about. Indeed, he talked about it in very similar terms the week before Christmas. It is primarily a matter of enforcement by chief police officers, simply because, as he says, there may or may not be a crime in relation to the use of e-scooters and e-bikes, but crimes are being committed as a consequence of using them. This debate is one of the ways of drawing it to the attention of chief police officers, so that enforcement action is appropriately taken.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, despite rental e-scooters being legal for use in public places in some English cities, they remain illegal on the roads and footpaths of Northern Ireland. However, they do sometimes appear, which prompted the Police Service of Northern Ireland to take to social media before Christmas to warn that any e-scooters gifted in the Province could be used only on private land. Using his good offices, can the Minister offer an assurance that any possible change to the legal status of e-scooters in Northern Ireland will not happen without full and proper consultation with the PSNI?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am certainly willing to commit to consultation with all the enforcement authorities on this, because it is very important, when we are able to do something about this, that the law is framed in a way that can be enforced both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one of my concerns is the number of scooters and bikes, whether electric or otherwise, ridden on the pavements. Does the Minister have any statistics on the number of people injured or killed by this method in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly have statistics about the number of people injured and killed in connection with cycling in general. I do not believe there are statistics specifically about these things being ridden on pavements, but I am not wholly sure we need to see that, because it is quite clear that riding e-scooters, e-bikes and bicycles on pavements is the wrong thing to do. The original Question is about the effect on the disabled. It is clearly a threat to the mobility of disabled people to find these cycles or scooters being either ridden or just dumped on the pavement. Both things are unsatisfactory for the mobility of our disabled people in Britain.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, given the huge safety concerns, what is the timescale for new legislation to regulate private electric bikes and e-scooters?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is a shame that the previous Government did not carry through their intention to legislate in 2022. Deciding what the overall legislative policy of the Government should be is above my pay grade, but it is clear that this is an issue we need to confront and the department is thinking very clearly. The noble Baroness will recall that I wrote to her to show her the variety of rules and regulations for these things across Europe and other countries. The department is thinking about this in advance, because framing this legislation will be more difficult than it might be because of the range of solutions adopted in other countries.

Cost of Living: Rail Fares

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the level of rail fares on the cost of living.

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

My Lords, before I answer the Question, I must say how sad I am to hear of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who I have known for a long time. I was expecting to see her in her place today for this Question but, sadly and unexpectedly, that was not to be. I will say more at the Second Reading of the Bus Services (No.2) Bill on Wednesday.

I turn now to the Question. We aim to keep the level of fares at a point that works for passengers and taxpayers. The forthcoming 4.6% increase to regulated rail fares is the lowest absolute increase in three years. To further balance rail fares with the cost of living, various concessions, rail cards and promotions are available. In early 2025, we will be holding a network-wide rail sale, giving passengers savings of up to 50% on selected advance and off-peak fares.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. I would like to add my personal condolences on the loss of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who was an outstanding parliamentarian and public servant.

Does the Minister agree that the rail fare increase is a direct consequence of agreeing an increase in train drivers’ pay without agreeing an increase in productivity? Further, can he explain to the House how he expects fare increases and the inflationary increase to achieve the Government’s core goal of fuelling growth in the economy?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The pay increase for train drivers and other railway staff, made last July, was in truth very little different from the proposals of the previous Government—although these were manipulated so that the dispute was unresolved for many months, leading to a huge loss in revenue for the railway. The previous Government’s proposals had no productivity conditions attached to them. This Government were not in a position to offer productivity conditions, simply because many of the train companies had not developed proposals that would enable a wage deal to be made.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I offer my condolences to the family of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and pay tribute to the work that she did in Wales, not only on cultural matters but on transport matters. She will be greatly missed.

Does the Minister accept that one matter even more important to rail travellers than the cost of tickets is that the trains are running? What is the answer to the shortage of drivers, which is apparently the reason why Avanti West Coast is so often unable to maintain its timetable? What are the Government doing about it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The shortage of drivers, and in some cases train managers and guards, is endemic and a result of insufficient attention being paid over a long period of time—including the period in which the last Government were in control—leaving the train companies without enough staff to staff the service. This Government intend to do something about the numbers of drivers, train managers and guards. We also intend to make running the railway a seven days per week issue rather than, in many cases, a railway where six days are rostered and the seventh day is dependent on people volunteering to work on rest days.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, under the last Tory Government, we saw it become cheaper sometimes to fly to New York than to get a train from Manchester to Euston. Will the Government’s action make train travel affordable for ordinary people? At the moment, we have been left with a legacy where many people cannot afford to travel by train.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. The truth of the matter is that, although regulated fares are controlled by the Government, there are many other fares on the railways, some of which produce eye-wateringly expensive charges for what used to be the traditional peak period, while others are extraordinarily cheap, even by continental standards. One of the many jobs that this Government have to do in reforming the railways is to rationalise the 50 million fares, making them affordable and understandable for passengers in order to improve revenue and improve demand on the railway.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, it is with great sadness that I lead for the Lib Dems today on this transport Question, given the tragic passing of our noble friend Lady Randerson. She was such a wise person and we will miss her enormously. I hope that the moving tributes from across the political divide and beyond will provide some comfort to her family and friends at this time.

Given that rail journeys remain below pre-pandemic levels, could the Minister outline specific ongoing measures that the Government are considering to incentivise rail travel?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her warm tribute to Baroness Randerson.

As I said, the Government are to have a rail sale early this year, in which many millions of tickets will be sold at discounted fares. Noble Lords will know that, following Covid, the demand characteristics of the railway have changed: there is still less commuting, despite changes in working practices, and more leisure travel. That gives real opportunities to produce fresh fare scenarios that will incentivise travel. To pre-empt a question that otherwise will be asked, the railway needs to be adequately able to cope with leisure travel for all seven days of the week in order that people can not only travel cheaply but get a seat when they do.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I echo what the Minister said about the late Baroness Randerson. We will have an opportunity to discuss her sad demise later in the week and return to the subject then.

In the future that the Minister envisages for the reformed railways, will it still be the case that regulated fares are set by the Secretary of State, or does he expect that power to pass to Great British Railways? Will that be in the consultation document that he has promised is going to be issued? When are we going to see that consultation document, given that he told the House he hoped it would be issued before the Christmas Recess, which clearly has not been the case?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments on Baroness Randerson.

On the future of the fares structure of the railway, it is overwhelmingly likely that, whoever the Secretary of State is, they will continue to have a strong interest in the fares structure of the railway. However, the proposition is that Great British Railways will be responsible for both revenue and cost, and therefore will have some freedom to set fares. It is true that I had hoped that the consultation document would be available before Christmas, but clearly that was not the case. The passage of the seasons in political time is variable, but I am going to promise that it will be available in the next few weeks.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the Government promised us that public ownership of the railways would mean lower fares and better performance. We already have four previous franchises run by the state—that is, run by him and his department. Have those four areas experienced lower fares and better performance?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The first thing to say is that public ownership of the railways, as the noble Lord knows, is not the only issue that needs to be resolved for the railway to run better. He will also know, because he was there at the time, that two of the companies were taken over at times of great distress in either performance or commercial performance, and that there are companies among those four where better performance and innovative fare structures have delivered a real result, notably the London North Eastern Railway.

The noble Lord must know that the performance of Northern is not very good, but also that it has been in public ownership for six years. I have said from this position before that industrial disputes there have been going on for so long that the management could not immediately enumerate how many they had got. That seems to me to be a failure of the previous Government and of the previous regime, because if you take a railway company into public ownership then you should seek to resolve its performance issues. This Government intend to do just that with those train companies which are already in public ownership but not performing in the way that London North Eastern Railway is.

E-scooters and E-bikes

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to revise legislation around the use of e-scooters and e-bikes.

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

My Lords, resolving the long-standing problems and missed opportunities of micromobility, including e-scooters, is a priority for my department, and we will work with colleagues across government to tackle this as soon as possible. We recognise the need to ensure that dockless cycle rental schemes, including for e-cycles, work for the whole community. That is why on Monday we announced plans in the English devolution White Paper to empower local leaders to regulate these schemes.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the White Paper, with the promise to allow local regulation of micromobility schemes. However, the public continue to buy e-scooters, which are illegal on public highways and which may not be built to the highest safety specifications. When will the Government bring forward urgent legislation on the use of personal e-scooters, covering safety issues, including batteries?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I absolutely respect the noble Baroness’s view. As of December 2023, circa 1 million people aged 16 or over owned an e-scooter in England. In July 2020, e-scooter rental trials were set up to inform future regulation, and in May 2022, the last Government announced primary legislation to legalise and regulate them. This was not delivered, meaning that e-scooters are, as she implied, still illegal to use outside of the e-scooter trials, which are due to run until May 2026. That is why, as I said, it is a priority for my department. We will move to tackle this as soon as possible.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, some agencies, such as the Safer Essex Roads Partnership, have two or three-week blitzes in which community volunteers and the police combine to stop illegal e-scooter drivers, but this enforcement is piecemeal and only partially effective. When will the Government spread this neighbourhood crackdown on illegal scooters across the country?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government are committed to a crime and policing Bill—I was discussing it with my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint just before Questions—which will look at the plight of local communities being plagued by anti-social behaviour. That Bill is intended to give the police stronger powers to stop vehicles being used to bring misery to our neighbourhoods, with officers no longer required to issue a warning before seizing them. That will allow them to swiftly deal with off-road bike nuisance in public parks and dangerous e-scooters on pavements, as well as street racing and cruising.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, Spain has started a scheme to identify those riding e-scooters who are driving too fast and are not wearing helmets, and a €100 on-the-spot fine has been introduced. Should we consider that?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have with me a summary of the way in which 22 European countries have dealt with e-scooters. One of the most striking things is that there is no consistency across Europe or across the other countries surveyed about how to deal with this. One of the challenges of the legislation opportunity that we will take is to work out what is best for this country. There are all sorts of variations: minimum ages, whether you can ride them on pavements and whether you need mandatory helmets, and one or two countries have registration schemes—though that seems as hard for e-scooters as it might be for bicycles. We will have to work through what the best scheme is for this country in order to put forward the appropriate legislation.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to a trial conducted by the previous Government which has gone on rather a long time—rather too long, in my view. Would it not make sense for the Government to draw that trial now to an early conclusion and see what lessons could be learned from it before proceeding with legislation, so that it could be informed by the results of the trial? Will the Minister be able to give a commitment that that will be done? When he learns the lessons of that trial, and will he take a particular interest in the use of e-scooters in relation to crime which we see on the street, which is a cause of great concern—not least mobile phone theft?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Happy Christmas to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Gosh, that is a distraction.

There is a criminal aspect to the use of e-scooters, particularly illegally, which is why legislation needs to be brought forward to regularise this. As regards the trials, it is implausible to suggest that we will curtail them, simply because they are the only e-scooters used on the public roads which are legal. However, I agree with the noble Lord that we should be learning the lessons of the trials that we have had as quickly as we can—they have been going on for five and a half years, as he recognises. Understanding what is going on in the rest of Europe and in developed countries will help us bring forward the right legislation for the United Kingdom.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, with reports of deaths on the pavements from e-bikes and e-scooters, there is a lot of worry about safety, particularly for those who are disabled or partially sighted. Can the Minister assure us that, when the consultations go ahead, charities working with people in such situations will be consulted, so that we can make sure we are offering them the maximum protection on our pavements and streets?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise the risk to pedestrians from e-scooters and, for that matter, e-bikes and ordinary cycles on the footway. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we will consider fully the needs of disabled, partially sighted and blind people in bringing forward the appropriate legislation. We want people to feel safe walking around our towns, cities and countryside; riding bikes too fast or riding e-scooters on the pavements is completely unsatisfactory for those people.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the recent meeting on the potential regulation of cyclists in the future. On the issue of e-bikes, scooters and cyclists, one of the things that none of them has is insurance, which means that they cannot compensate victims. Insurance could play the positive role of modifying human behaviour. The premiums reflect the risk; the higher the risk, the higher the premium. Can the Minister explain the argument against these people having insurance?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The dialogue with the noble Lord continues. As he said, we had a very fruitful meeting recently, following the earlier debate in the autumn on the whole question of cycling. The practical difficulty of insurance is simply that clearly people do not need a licence for these things, and a requirement for insurance would itself need enforcement—on which he is better qualified to opine than I am. There is a real difficulty with some of the propositions around licensing and insurance, which we will have to fully consider. He is right that, in the absence of insurance, if there is an accident and people are injured or worse then there is a real problem, but we have to crack this in a practical manner.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, on average, the London Fire Brigade is called to an e-bike or e-scooter fire once every two days, some of which lead to loss of life. My noble friend Lord Redesdale has a Private Member’s Bill, the Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill, which is designed to tackle the issues of substandard battery design, unsafe battery chargers and dangerous conversion kits. Will the Minister undertake to examine that Bill in detail, with the intention of providing government support to get this legislation on to the statute book as soon as possible?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will certainly undertake to look at that in the way that the noble Baroness suggests. In October, the Department for Business and Trade launched the Buy Safe, Be Safe campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of buying faulty and unsafe e-bikes, e-scooters and components such as batteries for the very reasons she suggests. These fires, some of which are catastrophic and have caused fatal injuries, are completely unacceptable, and the people selling these things ought to be brought to order.

Hammersmith Bridge

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to re-open Hammersmith Bridge to motor traffic.

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

My Lords, my department is working with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London on the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to traffic. The Government have provided the borough with almost £13 million of funding to date, and my honourable friend the Minister for Local Transport will reconvene the Hammersmith Bridge taskforce in the new year.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister. It is good news that the taskforce is meeting on 30 January, but of course it does raise the question of why it has not met for more than three years. Hammersmith Bridge is a major entry point into London, and hundreds of thousands of commuters have been very badly inconvenienced for more than five years. During that time, Notre Dame was gutted by fire and rebuilt.

The other bit of good news is that this is a project to be considered in the spring spending review. Will the Minister use all his extensive experience and efforts to ensure that this project is adopted? At the moment, it is a stain on our national reputation as a country with the capacity and the will to get things done.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble and right reverend Lord would not expect me to account for the time elapsed since the taskforce last met and July. It is now going to meet, and the good news is that the stabilisation work, which has been beset by delays and cost increases due to skill scarcity and inflation, should be finished by April 2025. The bridge is an iconic structure—perhaps not as iconic as Notre Dame, but it is certainly useful locally. It was built in 1887 from wrought iron; it has been bombed twice by the IRA, has not been properly maintained for decades, and nearly fell down five years ago.

Some noble Lords know that I can drive a public service vehicle. I must be the only person here who has driven one over Hammersmith Bridge in traffic, and I can tell noble Lords that the forward motion of the bus was accompanied by the lateral motion of the bridge —and the vertical motion of the bridge. It is the only time driving a bus I have nearly felt seasick.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, as a resident of Hammersmith and Fulham I would like to say that, although there has been some inconvenience, there has also been much better air quality. I am interested in what the Minister has to say about the possibility of an electric shuttle service running across the bridge, to enable those who are unable to walk across it to cross with relative ease. That would be much better for the air quality for those of us in Barnes and Hammersmith and Fulham, and could be done reasonably quickly.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is a matter for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and indeed for the neighbouring borough on the south side, of which I declare that I am a resident, to decide what they want to do with the bridge. The stabilisation work has stopped it from literally collapsing, but the capacity of the bridge to take traffic as well as pedestrians and cyclists will cost a lot more money, and the boroughs will have to work with Transport for London to decide how the bridge is going to be used. The other really important feature of the bridge is that at least once a year it is absolutely full of pedestrians. Therefore, a job that does not allow it to bear the weight of pedestrians for the boat race and other things will not be very satisfactory. However, it is for the boroughs to decide how to deal with that.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this is a sorry saga. The impact of the closure is significant for south-west London, particularly the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. When will a full economic and environmental evaluation be carried out on the effect of the bridge’s closure for this whole area?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

As I say, it is primarily for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which has the good fortune—or bad luck—to own this structure, and for the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames on the south side to decide between them what they want to do with this bridge in the future, bearing in mind the engineering evaluation about what the structure is capable of doing. It was designed and built for horse-drawn traffic; it has never been particularly strong. Therefore, the boroughs need to work with Transport for London to work out to what use it might be put. I agree that there needs to be an economic evaluation of the effects of whatever happens permanently, but first they need to work out what the bridge is capable of doing after it has been stabilised.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I was the chair of the Hammersmith Bridge taskforce, alongside the current Transport Secretary, who was also a member. I said that the taskforce would reconvene whenever a project came forward from Hammersmith and Fulham. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, who says that there is some doubt as to whether it really should be reopened from the Hammersmith and Fulham side. I have sensed all along that this is why Hammersmith and Fulham council has been dragging its feet. The Liberal Democrats also cannot claim glory in this. because they are remarkably silent from the south of the river. Can the Minister tell the House whether full, complete and costed proposals have been forthcoming from Hammersmith and Fulham council?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

We know what the range of costs for a future renovation of the bridge should be. They are very significant—at least a quarter of a billion pounds. I cannot currently say how detailed that is, but I know that it is the order of magnitude of what would need to be done to move further than just stabilisation, which will be completed, as I say. It must have been quite a burden to both chair and be in those meetings, and I am interested to hear about that. I hope that my honourable friend the Minister for Local Transport, when he reconvenes the taskforce, quickly brings the meeting to a clear understanding of what the bridge is to be used for in the future, and therefore what needs to be done to it in the long term.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Greater London Authority Act explicitly transferred the responsibility previously held by the Government Office for London to fund capital transport projects by the boroughs to the Mayor of London. It is undoubtedly the Mayor of London’s responsibility to provide funding for this. Does the Minister not agree that what we are seeing here is a failure by two Labour-run authorities that, at the expense of members of the public, are engaged in a competition to show who can be more anti-motorist?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will say two things to the noble Lord. First, the bridge has got into its current state over decades, which have seen various changes of control by the owners, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Secondly, he will know better than most that the level of settlement afforded to the Mayor of London for transport purposes by the previous Government was frankly derisory, and therefore the current Mayor of London has not been able to allocate money to all the things he would like to. We need to establish what the use of the bridge will be in future, which is a matter for the two boroughs. In other circumstances the noble Lord would defend fiercely the right of local authorities in London to decide what to do with their local roads. That has to be established. From that, it can be worked out what to do with the bridge, how much it will cost, how long it will take and, incidentally, who should pay for it.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a Barnes resident. Hammersmith Bridge is a key Thames crossing point for motor traffic in London. Its closure for over five years has greatly increased traffic congestion, delays and pollution around neighbouring bridges in Kew, Chiswick and Putney. Even the idea of a community pedicab service across the bridge has apparently been shelved—although much good it would do for motorists. What reassurance can the Minister give that he will ensure there is at least a plan in place for reopening the bridge to motor traffic before the actual reopening of the far-larger Baltimore harbour bridge, scheduled for 2028? How will he clarify who is responsible for such a plan and how it will be funded?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am very clear that the bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. It is that borough’s job as the highway authority for the local road network, together with Richmond upon Thames on the other side, to decide how this bridge should be used. The mayor has responsibility for transport in London; he is part of this discussion, and the department is too, but those boroughs have to decide. They have to look at both how long it has taken and how much it has cost to stabilise the bridge, and decide what that structure is capable of doing in the future. It has never been able to take heavy vehicles of any description and, as I said, latterly it was pretty unsuitable for vehicles of seven and three-quarter tonnes. The boroughs need to decide on that, because the cost of doing it and the time it will take to finish depends on it. It is their collective job to do it, and that is why the taskforce will be reconvened.

Train Crew Shortages

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reasons for the shortage of train crew reported across several train operators as the explanation for the cancellation of services.

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

My Lords, the current level of train cancellations is dreadful for passengers, and driver, guard and train manager availability has been driving much of this. The railway we inherited has unacceptable levels of staff shortages. We have commissioned detailed work to understand train crew numbers and availability. The previous Government had no useful knowledge of staff levels, recruitment, training, overtime and planning efficiency across individual operators. That work and the Government’s commitment to wider rail reform will drive better staff numbers and more efficient utilisation of those resources and reduce cancellations in the future.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer and am glad to hear about progress. However, recently, Northern Trains, which is directly government run, and Great Western Railway, which is still in the private sector, have repeatedly given a shortage of train crew as their reason for cancellations. As a previous Secretary of State said, nationalisation is “not a silver bullet”, but it will surely lead to a more coherent approach to employment terms and, hence, a better service for passengers. When and how do the Government intend to harmonise terms and conditions for employees and, therefore, to create a modern rail industry, providing modern standards of service, particularly at weekends?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hannett of Everton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy if somebody else answers. The noble Baroness will have seen—I know she knows—that the Government’s programme of public ownership will progressively bring train operations currently in the private sector back into the public sector. At the point of transfer, the transfer of undertakings regulations of course require the pay and conditions of staff to be maintained. As we progress with Great British Railways, the consultation which will lead to the wider railway Bill will determine future employment policy, working with staff and the trade unions.

The issues with Northern have a long history. One of the disputes that we inherited there is so old that its conditions are prior to the change in law about the expiry of mandates for strike action—I think it dates from 2017. It is taking a lot of sorting out; the Government are committed to do that. The noble Baroness is right: the conditions of service, which require work on only six days a week and rest days on the seventh, are no longer appropriate for a modern railway. We will have to change that, but we will do that in discussion and consultation with the staff.

[Lord Hannett of Everton (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I was getting so excited by the debate. I think that all in this House would concur that the disputes of the railway industry were lengthy and to the detriment of many people, including rail users. Can the Minister give a bit more insight into what actions his department took in seeking to resolve the long-standing industrial disputes at Northern Trains during the last four years, when it has been in public ownership, and how that contrasts with the previous Administration?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The lengthy disputes were damaging to passengers and to the railway’s revenue and sapped the morale of the staff—and, indeed, of the management. In particular, in relation to Northern, the number of disputes and the length of time for which they have taken place reflect the fact that no serious effort seems to have been made to resolve them in the time that the company was in the ownership of the last Government. The previous Secretary of State, the current Secretary of State and I are absolutely resolute that we have to resolve these issues. They are quite deep-seated, but as we are here today, the management and the trade unions are in discussion about how to do that, and we are strongly supporting them.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I start by commiserating with the Minister on the fact that transport does not appear to be being mentioned in the latest great reset speech today. It must be tough not being a priority. On the running of the railways, the noble Lord knows better than anybody else that, to run a railway, you need management with strong focus and a strong hand. Does he not accept that the morale of management at the train operating companies is absolutely shot to pieces as a result of the recent legislation, while it waits for the Hendy axe to fall, and that, in effect, at least over the next few years, the railways are being run by the unions—much as the Government appear to be being run by the unions?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There is no need to reflect the Government’s policy on railways in any particular speech by any member of the Government. We have a clear direction to go in, and we are going there. On the management of the railways, I have to say, if the noble Lord opposite knew the managers as I did, he would know that many of them were in fact rather pleased that there is now a direction. Their morale, as with my own when chairing Network Rail, was significantly damaged by the promise of reform, which started after the May 2018 timetable debacle and was not fulfilled by the previous Government. This Government are going to do it.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, the shortage of train crew is indeed one of the many reasons why we have cancellation of trains, but the puzzlement is—I would like the Minister to look into this—that, if there is a shortage of train crew, surely the company should know that the day before, or at the very least at the start of the working day? Many of the cancellations are at very, very short notice. I will give the example of Euston station. On many occasions, a train is cancelled at very short notice, which has a significant impact on crowd control within the concourse. Will the Minister look into why train companies leave it to very short notice to say that the train is cancelled due to a lack of train staff—whether it is drivers or managers?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Whether the train is cancelled at a moment’s notice or 28 hours or 48 hours in advance, none of that is good enough. I myself am puzzled by the number of times an apparently competent train company does not seem to have enough staff at short notice. The House may realise that I know how to deal with this. If you have not got enough volunteers to work on Sunday, somebody senior ought to be at the train crew depot on Friday afternoon, putting their arms around the staff and saying, “Would you work on Sunday?” That is what I am expecting from railway managers. We are expecting, in the new world of a joined-up railway, that the management will concentrate on that to the benefit of passengers.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, latest statistics show that Northern Trains is the worst-performing train company across all types of cancellations, and 80% of those cancellations are caused specifically by the operator. The Minister has talked about resolving issues, but what specific action will he take to tackle this poor performance from a public sector company to ensure that passengers receive the frequent and reliable service that they deserve?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Northern staffing and industrial relations issues are intractable and, as I said, have been there for a very long time. In the past five months or so, we have at least got to the bottom of how many disputes they have, what they are about and how they might be resolved. The management of Northern is working hard to do that. It is unacceptable—the Government are clear that it is unacceptable—but there is no point in just painting it as a public sector operation. It was brought into public ownership four years ago because the service was dire then. All I can say is that not much effort was made to sort it out in the four years until this Government took office.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, yesterday the Government announced the first transfer, of South Western Railway, to government ownership—I think next May. Can the Minister confirm that what he has told the House about the new industrial relations arrangements for rest-day working and such things will be in place, so that from May, South Western Railway will have a 100% attendance for all staff as necessary?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend knows as well as I do that actually these matters need to be resolved with staff representatives on a continuing basis. The transfer of South Western to public ownership will improve the performance of the railway, because it will be more coherently run between the track and the train. Of course, I cannot commit to perfect industrial relations from day one, but we will make sure that the resources are available for that to be done, and we shall also review, in each of the transfers, where we stand before the transfer, what needs to be done and how quickly it can be done after the point of transfer.

Road Transport (International Passenger Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 October be approved.

Relevant document: 7th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 December.

Motion agreed.

Road Transport (International Passenger Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Road Transport (International Passenger Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

Relevant document: 7th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, these draft regulations will amend existing domestic legislation to underpin the UK’s intended ratification of the regular and special regular protocol—I shall refer to it in future as the RSR protocol—to the Interbus agreement.

The Interbus agreement is a multilateral agreement that outlines the market access rules for bus and coach operators running occasional services, for example one-off holiday coach tours to, from, through and between its contracting parties. The UK became a contracting party to the Interbus agreement in 2021, having previously been a member when part of the European Union. In addition to the UK and the European Union, there are nine other Interbus contracting parties, including Ukraine, Moldova, Turkey and certain Balkan states.

The regular and special regular protocol—the RSR protocol—extends the Interbus agreement to cover both regular and special regular coach services. Regular services are timetabled routes while special regular services are timetabled routes for a specific category of people, for example school buses. I will refer to these types of journeys as RSR services. The RSR protocol was laid before Parliament as a Command Paper on 24 October this year. The International Agreements Committee welcomed the ratification of the protocol in its report of 20 November 2024.

These amending regulations are necessary to replace the temporary market access arrangements for RSR services between the UK and the European Union, which currently sit within the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or TCA. These will expire after 31 March 2025 as a consequence of the protocol having come into force for the EU, Moldova, and Bosnia and Herzegovina on 1 October 2024.

If this instrument is approved, the UK will be able to ratify the RSR protocol in early 2025 in order to bring it into effect for the UK from 1 April 2025. Without ratification, UK bus and coach operators would lose the right to run RSR services to the EU. They would also not be able to benefit from the right to run RSR services to other Interbus contracting parties that have ratified the protocol.

The instrument and our ratification of the RSR protocol will thereby allow UK coach and bus operators to continue to run RSR services to the EU without interruption. The key difference is that the treaty basis of these UK-EU arrangements will shift from the TCA to the RSR protocol. That requires consequential changes to UK legislation, which the instrument will implement. Ratification of the protocol will also enable UK operators to run RSR services to other non-EU Interbus countries that have also ratified the RSR protocol, the number of which is expected to grow over time.

The amendments will apply to legislation in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enable operators from all parts of the United Kingdom to continue running these coach and bus services internationally. The instrument includes amendments to the journey authorisation process for RSR services, as well as to offences to enable enforcement by the relevant authorities.

This instrument will revoke certain assimilated EU regulations from UK law, aligning entitlements of EU passenger service operators in the UK with those of UK operators in the EU. This instrument does not, however, affect the four additional rights secured under the TCA, including, most notably, rights that enable cross-border bus and coach services on the island of Ireland, which will continue.

The following provisions will remain even when the temporary TCA provisions expire. First, occasional services will still be permitted where they transit through one party to reach a non-contracting party to Interbus. An example of this is UK coaches that transit through the EU to reach Switzerland. Secondly, RSR services will still be permitted to start in one party and transit through the other party to reach a different part of the first party—in this case, Great Britain to Ireland to Northern Ireland.

Two important enduring provisions specifically relating to the island of Ireland will also remain. These will allow operators in one party to operate occasional services on the island of Ireland, picking up and setting down passengers on the territory of the other party. An example of this is a UK operator running a coach tour picking up and setting down passengers in either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. This instrument will also allow an operator from one party to undertake cabotage in the other party for RSR services running between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Approval of this instrument will enable the UK’s bus and coach operators to continue their international RSR journeys as they currently do, without a gap in market access provisions. Such a gap would be particularly sensitive on the island of Ireland. If approved, this legislation will ensure that the UK meets the required timescales outlined in the TCA, thus contributing to our positive and co-operative relationship with the European Union.

I turn to a summary of the instrument’s content. There are five key changes resulting from this instrument to note. First, it updates Great Britain and Northern Ireland law by including new references to the RSR protocol. These will replace references to the temporary RSR provisions in the TCA from 1 April 2025.

Secondly, the instrument updates existing references so that the other market access provisions of both the Interbus agreement and the TCA concerning international bus and coach services are retained. This will ensure that the range of additional access rights between the UK and EU will remain in effect. These include the right for occasional services to transit the EU to reach non-Interbus contracting parties, such as Switzerland, and, most notably, the special arrangements for cross-border services on the island of Ireland.

Thirdly, the instrument includes updates to transfer the treaty basis from the TCA to the RSR protocol for the authorisation process and documentation that operators must hold to run RSR services. This will allow current processes to continue once the RSR protocol comes into force.

Fourthly, the instrument updates existing offences and creates new ones to align them with the requirements of the market access arrangements of the RSR protocol. This will enable enforcement agencies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue to take action against non-compliant international operators that breach these market access requirements when driving in the UK. Enforcement action includes the issuing of fixed penalty notices. In more serious cases, operators may be prosecuted and subject to fines if found guilty. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has confirmed that it issued 32 on the spot fines to non-GB passenger service operators in 2023, including EU operators. These penalties will have been issued for enforceable offences, such as breaches of the drivers’ hours rules.

Finally, the instrument revokes assimilated EU Regulation (EC) 1073/2009 and assimilated Commission Regulation (EU) 361/2014 from UK law. These regulations governed the market access arrangements for international public transport services in the UK while the UK was part of the European Union. The practical effect of revoking these assimilated regulations is the removal of existing passenger transport cabotage rights for EU operators. This means that, from 1 April 2025, EU operators will no longer be able to use EU-registered vehicles to run coach services that both start and end in the United Kingdom. This will level the playing field for UK passenger transport operators, who are not able to undertake cabotage in the EU. It may also create opportunities for UK operators to provide such services domestically. However, the special provisions for the island of Ireland, including cabotage rights for passenger transport, provided under the TCA will not be impacted.

--- Later in debate ---

The other point I wanted to ask about relates to enforcement. The DVSA is charged with enforcing the provisions of this statutory instrument in operation. The Minister was good enough to give some information on the number of fines that have been issued. These on-the-spot fines are like fixed-penalty notices; they are accompanied by a fine that you can get back if you dispute the fixed-penalty notice—but they are, in effect, on-the-spot fines. If I heard him correctly, the number that the Minister gave was 32 fines in the last year, which seems potentially on the low side. He did not give the number of checks—that is, I did not hear him say how many checks were required to result in that number of 32. I am not demanding large numbers of stops on the road and coaches constantly being pulled over. I only ask that the Minister considers, especially given the new prohibition on cabotage, whether the enforcement resources dedicated to the implementation of this instrument are adequate. If he is confident that they are and can say that to the Committee, that would be helpful. Otherwise, we are happy in all respects to support this instrument as it goes forward.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

First, I thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their contributions. I will attempt to deal, either now or subsequently, with each of their points.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said that it was good news on the ability to travel to states beyond the European Union and asked whether there are more examples. The only information that I have is that Ukraine indicated in December 2023, at the last committee meeting of the Interbus contracting parties, that it was preparing to ratify the protocol. Of course, one hopes that the clarity these new regulations give will encourage other parties beyond the European Union’s geography to be interested.

The department has no information about the current level of EU operators using cabotage in the UK, which will cease, if these regulations are accepted, from 31 March 2025. I suspect that, in non-quantifiable terms, it does not occur very often but, as I know from my past life, this matter has been a subject of some concern for UK coach operators in terms of the imbalance of opportunity. I will come back to that.

The noble Baroness mentioned consultation. The Confederation of Passenger Transport, which is the bus and coach operators’ trade body in the UK, is aware of this matter and has no comments on it, which I think is satisfactory. Officials tell me that they will continue to be in touch with the CPT, as we call it, in order that they are fully abreast of what is going on. Of course, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that the principal effect is in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I can well believe that there are occasional, regular or special regular services that cross the border numerous times, because of the border’s nature.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about electronic travel authorisation. I will write to him on that subject so that we are absolutely clear on whether it will still be required.

I was delighted to discover that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has some sympathy with me—long may that continue. He mentioned the impact assessment. He is right that the instrument will have little impact, but it is important that UK bus and coach operators have some certainty about their future. As I just pointed out, the forthcoming ban on performing cabotage in the UK being passed to EU operators is a matter that has exercised some of their minds. They will welcome this instrument; there is no doubt about that. There might be some dislocation to UK passengers as a consequence, but I say to UK operators that, if they welcome the correction of this imbalance, it will be up to them to make the effort to capture some of the traffic that might otherwise be lost.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to enforcement. I did not say how many checks the 32 on-the-spot fines applied to because I did not know at the time I read the speech. I will look at that further and ask officials to speak to the DVSA so that it and its vehicle inspectors can take an informed view about this change and look out for these operators. It is not hard to understand that there are some obvious places to do that. These operators will enter the country through ports, and I think that enforcement operations are thoughtfully devised so that inspectors catch the right people, at the right time, in the right way.

The approval of this statutory instrument will ensure that the UK’s bus and coach operators can continue running services internationally, as they currently do and, most importantly, without any disruption or interruption from 1 April 2025. It will enable the UK to fulfil its international obligations under the TCA by enabling the UK’s ratification of the RSR protocol, which will contribute to our co-operative and close relationship with the European Union. The statutory instrument is, of course, required now to ensure that we can ratify the RSR protocol in January 2025 to bring it into force so that it is ready after the temporary provisions of the TCA expire on 31 March 2025.

Motion agreed.

Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 October be approved.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 November.

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

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

I apologise if I did not make myself clear, but I am hoping to have a chance to talk about these regulations on another occasion. Is that possible?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this lengthy and comprehensive statutory instrument was debated on Monday in Grand Committee and approved. This afternoon is the appropriate opportunity to move this Motion.

Motion agreed.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the proposed purpose clause is unnecessary.

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A I will speak also to Motion B. I am grateful for the collaboration and engagement up to this point on the Bill, which is a critical step towards our manifesto commitment of reforming our fragmented railway system. This system has cost taxpayers and passengers dearly in huge fees paid to private operators and in the delays, cancellations, overcrowding and poor service that passengers have endured for far too long. There is a strong public desire for public ownership. In September, a YouGov survey found that 66% of people nationally agreed that railway operations should be run by the public sector and only 12% favoured private operation. I hope that the House can agree that we need to pass this Bill and move on to the critical work of the next one.

Motion A is about the purpose clause proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Moylan. I completely agree that public ownership and wider reform should be guided by a clear purpose, with users of the railway placed at the heart of that purpose. Turning specifically to Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, I was disappointed to see that the noble Lords were insisting on this, despite the overwhelming majority against it in the other place. This is not in keeping with the collaborative approach that I hoped we were taking to the Bill in this House—and quite an unusual approach for this House to take as well.

The Government have already set out the purpose of public ownership and wider reform in our policy document Getting Britain Moving. This identified six objectives. People can see what they are and can hold the Government to account on delivering against them. These objectives are already at the heart of our decision-making. For example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have met the worst-performing train operating companies and their Network Rail counterparts and have demanded that they do better for passengers, right now. We have brought to an end long-running industrial disputes that inflicted misery on passengers. We have convened Network Rail and train operators to work together to tackle overcrowding at Euston and provide a better service for passengers. We have made new commitments about accessibility, following debates in this House, and we have pledged to increase transparency by publishing train performance data at stations. So there is no need to place a purpose on the face of the Bill—especially one that tells only part of the story.

I also remind noble Lords that during the previous Government’s 14 years in office, they never felt the need to legislate to impose this new statutory purpose on the Secretary of State, either in relation to the privatised railway or to the train operations that they chose to keep in public ownership for years—one now for six years—with no sign of a plan to return them to the private sector. However, I agree with noble Lords on all sides of the House that we must ensure that the future Great British Railways will have a clear purpose. In consulting on our wider reform plans, we will restate our objectives for the railway and its purpose. I assure noble Lords that delivering a reliable, punctual train services will be a prominent part of that purpose, as it already is.

I urge the House to support Motion A for two reasons. First, the purpose clause is unnecessary: we have already set out our objectives for the railway; we are already acting to achieve those objectives; and we are ready to be held to account for whether or not we deliver against them. Secondly, we will ensure that we set out a similarly clear purpose for Great British Railways in the forthcoming consultation.

Regarding Motion B, this House will be aware that Amendment 2 was rejected in the other place on the grounds of financial privilege. The Government understand the calls for the worst-performing services to be brought into public ownership first. But Amendment 2 was not the right approach. Its effect would be to delay the transfer of services into public ownership and so require taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for millions of pounds in fees for longer than necessary. Instead, the Government’s approach is the right one, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and her noble friends for recognising this in previous debates.

We have made it clear that where the contracts we have inherited from the previous Government allow it, we will bring failing operators’ services into public ownership as soon as we can. There is sufficient flexibility in the existing contract expiry dates to allow us to do that without overwhelming the public sector operator. Beyond that, we will bring services in-house as existing contracts end. This will avoid paying compensation for early termination and will avoid delaying the benefits of public ownership, as Amendment 2 would have done.

I urge the House to support Motion B so that the Government can get on with delivering the benefits of public ownership in accordance with the very clear mandate on which they were elected. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

And perhaps learned; that is another point.

The fact is that these are delaying tactics by the party opposite. I am amazed that the Liberal Party should want to be associated with this amendment. It is contrary to custom and practice in this place—not that I am a great one for adhering to the rules, necessarily.

This is a meaningless amendment, putting a duty on the Secretary of State which he already has. What Secretary of State wants to do anything other than improve the railway system? I mean, he did not always succeed, though it might have been well-meant during the time of the party opposite, but certainly the Secretary of State’s intention at that time—at any time—would be to improve the railway system. It really is not necessary to add such a clause to this Bill. I would be grateful if my noble friend treated it with the contempt it deserved.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will address just a few points.

I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his description of the previous Government as being dilatory. It is six and half years since the timetable went wrong in the north-west of England and on Thameslink, in May 2018, and nothing really has been done. The railway is suffering and its passengers are suffering, and something needs to be done about it. I have referred to this before but, at some speed, we will be consulting shortly about the content of the wider Bill to reform the railway. I think that differentiates this Government and the speed at which they choose to operate.

On Motion A, I want there to be no doubt that this Government will undertake reform with a clear purpose and direction. As published in Getting Britain Moving, our objectives are set and are more ambitious and wide-ranging than the proposed purpose clause. We want to see reliability, affordability, efficiency, quality, accessibility and safe travel as the DNA of our railways—the foundational values that drive reform and deliver on what passengers expect. Public ownership will be the first step in ensuring better services, by placing the passenger front and centre as we rebuild public confidence, trust and pride in our railway.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the commitment that passengers should be at the core of the future of the railway. In that respect, the wider railways Bill is a different matter. It will establish Great British Railways as a new body at arm’s length from government, which will not be directly accountable to the electorate in the same way as the Government are. In that context, it is essential that the railways Bill should clearly set out two things.

The first of those is the functions of Great British Railways—what it is actually going to do. The second is what Great British Railways is supposed to achieve by exercising those functions—in other words, its purpose. I can absolutely confirm to your Lordships’ House today that the forthcoming railways Bill will set out both of those things, and that delivering improvements for passengers and maintaining high standards of performance will be a crucial part of its purpose. I will be more than happy to engage with the noble Baroness on how we express that in the Bill.

I urge your Lordships’ House to support the Government’s Motion A and to reject the amendment in Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for two reasons. First, it is unnecessary, because the Government have already set out our objectives for the railway, we are already acting to achieve those objectives, and we are ready to be held to account on whether we deliver against them as we transfer the services to public ownership under this Bill. Secondly, as I have just assured the House, we will ensure that the railways Bill sets out a clear purpose for Great British Railways.

With regard to Motion B, the Government simply cannot accept an amendment that would delay reform, therefore going against the wishes of the electorate, and which would place additional cost on the taxpayer. We will use every tool at our disposal to resolve poor performance, including contractual termination rights, where they are triggered.

On the Bill itself, public ownership is not only the will of the voters but the right step towards bringing an end to years of fragmentation. Tens of millions of pounds in fees will be saved each year due to public ownership and, with the new direction and focus that this Government are now providing, current in-house operations are already seeing a reduction in cancellations. The evidence that public ownership is the way forward is clear.

On top of this, poorly performing train operators are being held to account, as I described earlier, and with Great British Railways coming further down the line, this Government have shown that we are serious about reform. None the less, improvements are needed now, and the Bill starts that process.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who spoke in this brief debate, particularly the two Opposition Front-Benchers. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for Lib Dem support up to now; I hope that will continue. I am especially grateful to my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Snape. It is always a pleasure to hear from him. Before I came into this House, I was told repeatedly that everyone is very friendly, very compassionate, very polite and respectful. Yet, there we are.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B agreed.

Bus Funding

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to welcome the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place. Bus services outside London have been allowed to atrophy and die for far too long. They are vital to society and our economy. They are used by the poorest, the oldest and the youngest. Although we love to talk about trains here, buses are the most used form of public transport.

The funding information in the Statement, as far as it goes, is welcome, as are the commitments to reform. The situation with buses has been too complex, too fragmented, too short-term and too competitive. In practice, the competition has led to money going to, in effect, the councils that are best at filling in the forms rather than those most in need.

Courtesy of the Campaign for Better Transport, I have some illustrative statistics. Why should Swindon get £3.98 per head for buses and Reading, just down the road and not dissimilar in size, get £168.68 per head? No formula would explain that. Of course, Reading has extremely good buses as a result of extremely good funding.

There are currently six different funding pots. We need one single integrated fund with “long-term” written all over it, so can the Minister explain in more detail exactly how the current six funds will be amalgamated and repurposed?

I turn to the £3 bus fare cap and its impact. It is, of course, effectively a 50% fare increase in an industry that has already seen fares rise by 59% since 2015, so it will have a huge impact. Yet there were reports at the weekend that the Secretary of State had said that maybe it would be linked in some way to the rate of inflation. Will the £3 cap be applied in the same way as the £2 cap, or will it be amended in some way? What analysis have the Government made to lead them to abandon the £2 cap, which appeared to be working well?

In many areas, particularly rural areas, demand-responsive and Dial-a-Ride services are vital. I ask the Minister, because this is not mentioned in the Statement: what will the Government do to encourage these services to ensure proper co-ordination between local authorities, bus operators and other bodies, such as NHS trusts, so that rural areas get a better deal from the providers at various levels in their area and a structure that local people can rely on?

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their comments on this Statement, which was made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the other place yesterday.

I turn first to the noble Lord’s comments. He correctly identifies a methodological change in the way this money has been allocated. The formula used is simple but, the Government think, fair. It relates equally, in thirds, to the level of population, so the greater the population of the local transport authority the more money; to bus mileage, so the greater the bus mileage, the more money; and to the index of multiple deprivation, published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is the official measure of relative deprivation in England. That is a much fairer method of allocating money for a service that, as the noble Baroness said, is disproportionately used by people on lower incomes, women, the young and old, and is the mainstay of public transport in Great Britain.

The Government are entitled to make decisions about how they wish to spend money, but the point I most want to make is that the previous competitive system has all the disbenefits the noble Lord referred to—the time spent bidding, the costs, the use of consultants and the uncertain outcomes—whereas this method provides a much more certain way of allocating this money and is much fairer across the whole of England. Of course this money is not loose change; it is a substantial amount for a vital public service in Britain, but use of this formula is a much fairer way of allocating this money. In fact, a competition arbitrated by nameless officials on criteria that, frankly, have not been clear to the local authorities in the past is a much more likely source of rewarding “your mates”, as he refers to them, than this formula.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, welcomed the Statement, and I thank her for that. There are, of course, differences in the allocations to local transport authorities, and I can probably account afterwards for the difference between Swindon and Reading. I will attempt to do so to her in due course. The allocations have been allocated by this formula and represent, in the Government’s view, a fair method of distributing a considerable amount of money. While there are some headings in the allocation—capital, revenue, some money for helping source officer help and so on—local authorities that receive the money are free to use it in the way they want. The principle the Government are delighted to have is that the capital sums can be used for new vehicles, bus stops, information systems or bus stations and the revenue can either support fares initiatives, in particular for the young—some combined authorities have kept the maximum fare at £2—or support services to enable a fair distribution of bus mileage throughout their towns and areas.

The reference the noble Baroness made to the £3 fare and the 50% fare increase is, of course, not so. Most bus journeys are short and are carried out in urban areas. With the £3 maximum, there are many fares that will not go up at all. The reference to inflation has been made by the Government to ensure that fares under £3 rise only by the rate of inflation, whereas the previous £2 limit encouraged some operators to put up their fares by far more than inflation to the £2 limit. The analysis of the effect of the maximum bus fare will be published by the department in due course.

Finally, the noble Baroness referred to demand-responsive transport and dial-a-ride. Local transport authorities that receive this money are able to spend it on bus services in the way that they want, so they are able to support demand-responsive services if those are the right way of dealing with their area. The principle is that local transport authorities know much better than government how the money is best spent. Therefore, this money has been distributed with great freedom to allow them to spend it in the right way for their area, to create economic growth and to support jobs and housing in the way that local transport does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to refer to the innovation by the Harrogate Bus Company. There are two ways in which this formula, which I think is serviceable rather than rough and ready, works in operators’ favour. One is that it is proportionate to bus mileage, so places in which the present bus operator has done well will have more bus mileage, which is a good measure of saying roughly how much bus service there is. The other is that local authorities will get a capital allocation that can be and normally is used to support the purchase of vehicles. This formula works for good bus companies as it works for good local authorities, and I think it will be self-evident that the innovations that the noble Lord referred to will be replicated elsewhere.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, in a diocese such as mine, which covers Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, where many people look outside the county for services—for example, many people in Bedfordshire go to hospitals in and work in Milton Keynes, in another county—lack of integration of the bus services is causing quite a lot of problems. How is the new system going to lead to more and better integration? Secondly, what consideration has been given to finding, I hope, free bus passes for school children, since our towns are absolutely gridlocked at rush hour, at a time when we need children to get on the buses, get exercise and learn independence rather than being driven one by one in cars causing huge jams?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. The question of cross-border bus services is not altered, at least by this settlement, compared with previous settlements. But it is a question that the Government intend to address through the wider buses Bill, which will come before this House shortly. To some extent, you rely on local transport authorities to collaborate with each other, because the movement of passengers is quite often across local authority boundaries. We will have something more to say about that in due course.

The congestion caused by children travelling to school is a very common phenomenon in towns and cities throughout Great Britain. It is open to local transport authorities with the revenue element of this funding to devise schemes for cheaper bus fares for children and the Government will, of course, encourage them to do so, providing it is the right thing for their local area.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, on this side of the House I am sure there is a very warm welcome for these proposals. Under the previous Government, when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, a White Paper was produced which, if I remember correctly, was called Bus Back Better. At the time, I was a Cumbria county councillor and we had to put forward plans to see whether the Department for Transport would give us the money. We did not get any money, despite the problems of rural bus services in such a widespread geographical area as Cumbria. Frankly, the reason we did not get any money was that Cumbria was run by a Labour and Liberal Democrat joint administration. It was politics that decided it, not any attempt at objectivity. Does the Minister agree that a far better system is one where there is some rough and ready objectivity for some years ahead, which gives transport authorities an opportunity to plan?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I very much agree with my noble friend that a serviceable formula for the allocation of this money is a better thing to do, and to allocate some money to every local transport authority in England. The most damaging feature of all to bus services—which is a feature of the previous methodology of funding—is to have some money one year and no money the next. What happens in those circumstances is that supported services are withdrawn, the passengers disappear—either they cannot travel or they find some other method of travel—and it becomes much harder to re-establish those services. I will not bore the House with details, but I can find many examples across England of perfectly good services forced to be withdrawn because of the inadequate distribution of the previous funding. They are far more difficult to re-establish when funding turns up. The best thing you can have with a bus service is certainty of service over a long time.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I go back to the question of increasing the cap to £3. In rural areas, such as I live, for a couple going shopping—for example, in Lincoln—several times a week, the cost would be quite challenging. Would the Minister reconsider limiting the uplift in the cap to, say, £2.50? It is a challenge for people in low-salary areas.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The raising of the cap from £2 to £3 was entirely necessary because of the fiscal position that this Government inherited. A cap of £3 is actually a pretty good cap in rural areas with long bus journeys compared with the previous fare structures. We know that many fares have gone down by 60%, 70% or 80% for passengers. Of course, there will be some who have to pay more under this system. The subject in question—the distribution of local bus funding for the next year—is designed to make sure that there are services to travel on. It is not just bus fares that matter. What matters equally is that there are buses to travel on. This distribution will ensure that there are buses across the whole of England, in local transport authority areas, to do so.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the fact that we are talking about buses in the House, but in some parts of our country, including rural areas, bus services have not only been reduced but have vanished completely. What special support will the Government be providing to help rural authorities rebuild their bus services, including an integrated fund to support the switch to zero-emission buses? Can the Minister clarify, following the discussion we have just had, over what period this funding is being provided? As he has already outlined, single-year funding settlements and stop-start pots of funding will not reinvigorate our bus services across the country.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The funding provided by what is effectively a £1 billion settlement will allow local transport authorities in all areas to spend this money in the best possible way. I am very sympathetic to rural areas, where services have disappeared in the past, and I have explained some of the reasons why recently that might be the case. There is capital funding in this settlement for zero-emission vehicles, as there should be. It is for one year, but the spending review in the spring will no doubt give direction for future years. The equitable distribution of this through this serviceable formula is much more likely to result in service patterns across both rural and urban areas, which will be sustainable into the future.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, on 5 November, London bus drivers marched on Westminster to complain about their working conditions, including that most routes now have toilet facilities only at one end, meaning that drivers have three hours between toilet breaks, that the headway driving system sometimes requires drivers to break the speed limit, and that conditions within cabs can become unbearably hot or cold. In all this talk about funding, could the Minister assure us that drivers will not be forgotten?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord might know that, for some years I was responsible for the London bus service. I am not any longer; the Mayor of London is. I would question some of the things the noble Lord has asserted, simply because I know through prior knowledge that we spent an awful lot of time and money providing far more toilet facilities for bus drivers in London than anybody had done before. I would question whether any responsible operator licensed by the traffic commissioners would commission schedules which expected buses to exceed the speed limit.

What I would say to the noble Lord is that it is very important that bus drivers are paid properly and looked after properly, and that their scheduled and actual hours comply with the law. To that end, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency will inspect those operations, whether in London or elsewhere. The traffic commissioners will take action against operators that do not comply with the legislation in respect of the operation of urban bus services.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, reliability of services is as important as fare levels to bus users. Many folk in my patch in west Yorkshire tell me that they were at risk of losing their jobs because they could not get to work on time because the bus failed to turn up. I can confirm that. I had decided to travel from my hometown to Leeds on the bus, and the first two buses were cancelled going, and, on the way back, three were cancelled. This was in the middle of a Friday afternoon. Reliability is absolutely key to encouraging people to use buses. What will this new funding formula do to penalise the providers of bus services if they cannot provide a reliable service?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The reliability of bus services is terribly important to the people who use them and to the local economies of the places where they operate. This funding formula of itself will not affect the reliability of services, other than to give local authorities more resources for the officers and skills to be able to manage local bus services that they procure. The real penalty for unreliable operation of bus services outside London lies, currently at least, with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the traffic commissioners, which can bring operators in front of them when they fail to operate the services that they have registered.

One reason why conurbations, led by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, are looking at franchising bus services is so that they can have greater control. In those cases where operations are franchised, there is a different way in which to penalise operators. In fact, one of the successes in Manchester has been a much higher level of reliability, not only because there is more direct control over the provision of the bus service but because the Mayor of Greater Manchester is taking a much stronger interest than previously in the ability of the road network to enable reliable bus operation. I would expect that to be replicated in other combined authority areas that choose to go down the route of bus franchising.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on this Statement. It is not before time, and it is really good that we have a much longer-term commitment to the provision of cost-effective buses—which is, after all, what a very large proportion of the population need for their everyday use. As my noble friend said, buses are needed for going to work, school, college and so on, and I am sure that this will be very welcome around the country.

There is one group of conurbations that cannot be helped by this bus Statement, because there are no roads. I refer to the Isle of Wight, which does not have any roads to the mainland, and which has a population of over 100,000. Where I live, in the Isles of Scilly, the population is a bit smaller, at 2,500, but it certainly does not have any roads to the mainland. The people who live in those places still need access for everyday use—for visits to hospitals, schools and so on. Would my noble friend consider meeting some of the people involved to see whether there is not a similar formula that could be adapted for the sea routes, rather than the air routes, to give the residents of these island groups a fairer bite of the cherry, as is now going to be delivered to the rest of the country?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend has raised this subject before, certainly with respect to the Isles of Scilly, and I am also familiar with the issues raised by the two Members of Parliament there are now for the Isle of Wight at a recent meeting with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and me. Of course, there is a very comprehensive bus service on the Isle of Wight and it will be supported by payments to the local transport authority there. I am not sure whether the rather smaller bus service on the Isles of Scilly is supported in that manner, but if the noble Lord would like me to find out I will do so.

Ferry services are very different. I know that the issues with the Isle of Wight, in particular, have been raised with the Secretary of State for Transport, and I will write to the noble Lord on where we are with that.