Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026.

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

My Lords, port state control is the system used by the United Kingdom and other countries to inspect foreign-registered visiting ships to ensure that they meet the necessary international safety and pollution prevention standards. These regulations apply not to British ships but only to foreign-registered ones, to ensure that they meet the expected standards to operate safely in our waters.

The United Kingdom is a party to the Paris memorandum of understanding, the well-established collaborative regional agreement to co-ordinate this activity, with the aim of ensuring that international standards that reduce the risks to health, safety and the environment are met. It allows us to information-share and work with our neighbours to ensure the effective targeting of vessels to identify those that are substandard. The purpose of the proposed regulations is to replace and update the existing 2011 United Kingdom regulations on this subject and to reaffirm our commitment to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements by giving effect to them in UK law.

A four-week public consultation was carried out, during which responders expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency published a consultation report, including responses to comments received. Before the regulations were laid in draft, they were sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for informal pre-laying scrutiny. The JCSI provided drafting comments on the regulations at that stage and then formally considered them after they were laid and noted them without further comment. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has not drawn this instrument to the attention of the House.

The background to this statutory instrument is the Paris memorandum of understanding, which I understand dates from 1978 and is one of a number of collaborative regional agreements setting out a framework for carrying out port state control inspections globally. It is not a European Union agreement, although some parties are EU member states.

At the time when the 2011 regulations were made, the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union and the regulations were required to implement the relevant EU directive on port state control in accordance with the UK’s obligations as a member state. However, the UK remains a party to the Paris MoU and continues to maintain its commitments under the agreement as a non-EU member. The proposed regulations give effect to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements in UK law and update the list of conventions against which inspections are undertaken to include those to which the UK has become a party since the 2011 regulations were written, and which the UK will now also enforce against foreign ships visiting the UK.

These regulations also remove references to EU legislation, instead referencing the Paris MoU directly. This has had the effect of making the regulations longer than the 2011 regulations, but the relevant legislation is now contained just in a UK instrument. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, the proposed regulations also remove reliance on this power. While Merchant Shipping Act powers are also used to the fullest extent possible, it has been necessary to use the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers to fill some gaps before those powers expire next month.

I have set out the purpose and scope of these regulations: to update merchant shipping legislation and ensure it reflects the UK’s commitment to the Paris MoU. These regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards, not only for UK-registered ships but for all ships using UK ports, while tailoring the legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU exit context. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures and I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for their helpful briefing last week. As we have heard, this instrument revokes and replaces the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, which implemented the UK’s commitment under the Paris memorandum of understanding and the associated EU directive. As I learned from last week’s briefing, the Paris MoU obligates the UK to operate a regime of port state control for the monitoring, inspection and control of foreign-flagged ships calling at UK ports, to reduce the risks that such ships may pose to health, safety or the environment by ensuring that they meet relevant international standards. We have been part of the Paris MoU and its predecessor since the 1970s.

The MCA has around 100 inspectors and inspects around 1,300 ships a year. This instrument will mean that new maritime conventions are properly referenced and reports will be written in the international context, which will improve shipping safety. However, this SI shows just how much work there still is to amend legislation a decade after Brexit. Does the Minister agree that the time and effort that have to go into technical tweaks and amendments such as this distract from tackling other important issues and take up resource?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am very sorry to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, say that making laws for our own country, through our own processes, is somehow a distraction from what we should be doing, and that it would be better, presumably, if we were to hand this responsibility over to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I cannot say how much I would want to distance myself from such a position.

Since I have very little to say about the instrument, I shall add a little local colour. I did on one occasion seize an unseaworthy ship. When I was the third secretary in the British embassy in South Africa, I was the duty officer one weekend. In those days without mobile phones, that meant I had to stay home all weekend, very close to the telephone. Nothing ever happened but to my astonishment, I got a telephone call from the harbourmaster at Durban, saying that there was a British-registered vessel—or, rather, I think it was registered in some territory, dominion or whatever in the Caribbean that none the less fell under the Crown—in his port. It was so unseaworthy that he intended to seize and immobilise it but, apparently, he needed the permission of Her Majesty’s consul-general. I knew nothing about consular services, but there we were: I was the representative, for that weekend, of Her Majesty’s consul-general in South Africa. After a moment’s thought, I reached the conclusion that, on the whole, it was probably safer all round for me to say, “Yes, you have my authority to seize this vessel”, than to say no or prevaricate in any way—so that is what I did.

It has not happened since, but I am therefore not wholly unfamiliar with the idea that there is a degree of port inspection going on and that vessels not meeting appropriate standards are appropriately dealt with. This instrument affects no change whatever in current arrangements. It advertises itself as achieving no change in current arrangements, and that is absolutely fine. I have no objection to this instrument.

However, I will raise the same point that I raised when we discussed a statutory instrument—I think on aviation safety—a week or two ago. This instrument is made—the Minister said “in part”—using powers under the retained EU law Act. By common agreement, that Act expires in June. From that date onwards, we have no capacity to amend regulations of this sort, which are crucial in the world of transport. Statutory instruments are the normal means by which these regulations are made in the field of transport, but this spreads across the whole of Whitehall and many other departments as well. I say that we have no power to change them—we have no power to do so other than by primary legislation and Act of Parliament; we cannot use statutory instruments.

This failure of foresight on the part of the Government seems a massive dereliction of duty. Even if the Minister was able to assure us today that there will be legislation in the King’s Speech to correct this oversight—I fully appreciate it is unlikely that he can tell us today what will be in the King’s Speech—it is most unlikely that it will possible to pass it in both Houses and enact it by the end of June, when it will be necessary. As I say, I regard this as a massive dereliction of responsibility on the part of the Government, and I expect there to be serious potential consequences unless something is done.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their consideration of these draft regulations. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest that they have shown in ensuring that the UK’s port state control regime remains relevant and compliant.

The noble Baroness invited me to comment on whether this and other changes distracted the Government and officials from more pressing matters. She would not expect me to do other than make an official reply, which is that the development of the new regulations has been a lengthy process, due to the complexity of the existing legislative regime. There have been a number of changes as a consequence of leaving the EU; my understanding is that this is one of the last. It has been left until late because the Paris memorandum of understanding is behind all this. As the noble Baroness said, we were a signatory when that started in the 1970s, and therefore this could be left until quite late.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has one on me: he has seized a ship. I was thinking of withdrawing the whole lot and changing the regulations so that, in the future, he had to seize all the ships. He would be very busy doing that, or might at least be very busy attending ships. However, on reflection, it is better if we leave the arrangements just as they are in the way that this statutory instrument is drafted. The noble Lord certainly has some experience there that I have never had, and I doubt that I ever will.

The noble Lord makes a more serious point about the remaining EU legislation. My information on the maritime sector is that this is one of the last things because the Paris MoU is there and we can revert to it. I will not comment on what might be in the King’s Speech; the noble Lord and I, and everybody else, will have to wait for it.

Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 February be approved.

Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 April.

Motion agreed.

Trains: Punctuality

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans train operators have to improve the punctuality of passenger train services in every season of the year.

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

My Lords, performance is already improving, as the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act enables management of operations and infrastructure together, progressively, for each route and operating company. Harmonising performance measurement, reducing driver shortages and improving industrial relations are already making a difference. Passing the Railways Bill will enable Great British Railways to drive further systemic action, share good practice and encourage innovation, technology and investment, including on climate change, further improving performance, whatever the season.

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his very comprehensive Answer and the very important work that he is doing to improve the quality of our railway. When I was responsible for delivery in No. 10 years ago, I asked DfT officials why performance was so much worse in the autumn than in the rest of the year. They rolled their eyes and said, “Leaves on the line. The leaves fall off the trees in the autumn”. I said, “Oh yes, I realise that—what I want to know is why that takes you by surprise every year. Where’s the plan for autumn?” The result was that there was a plan for autumn and, if we look at the data from 2003 to 2013, we see that autumn performance improved every year. Why do people who run the railways so often leap for improving excuses rather than focusing on grinding out improvements in performance?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The prevailing culture on the British railway system for the past 30 years is to blame somebody else when things go wrong. That is why the Government have come forward with the proposition to create Great British Railways. As I know from my own experience of running Transport for London, you want somebody in charge who has nowhere to go who fixes problems. Autumn is regular—it happens every year—and so does winter and so does summer. The railway has plans that are altered according to the weather, and the weather is getting worse because of climate change. I am confident that the structure that we are going to put in will drive better performance in all those seasons.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, what are the Government planning to do to put a stop to the current situation where Northern services in the north-west have had their timetable cut by half on Sundays, because Sundays fall outside of conductors’ regular working week? When will that be resolved so that passengers can travel by train whatever the season and whatever the day of the week?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is completely right—the Northern conductors’ dispute started in 2019—actually, before 2019—but there was no obvious movement on it for many years prior to the accession to power of this Government. I am hopeful that there will be a resolution very shortly; it is a complex issue, but we are on the case. She is right that people in the north deserve better on Sundays and, indeed, on every other day of the week.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that, in future, when a train is cancelled or severely delayed for over 30 minutes, it is the public purse that will reimburse people for those delays and cancellations? How is the department intending to budget for this, and from which budget does he intend to take that money?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think that the noble Baroness will find that the public purse is recompensing that delay replay now. It is a good scheme to compensate people properly for significant delays, but the object, which I have been talking about in this Question, is to reduce the delays by better management of the railways. That is what is important here. It is not compensation that should count but running the railway properly.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, in the last year, just under 10% of British train journeys were either cancelled, truncated or arrived more than 10 minutes late. The prime causes identified were unavailability of crew or fleet and signal and points failures. Recently, my wife and I holidayed in Japan for almost three weeks, travelling on national, regional and local trains. Every single train, without exception, arrived to the very minute on time and delivered us to our destination to the very minute on time. Will we ever attain that level of reliability?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Virtually the whole of the world, in countries that run railways, is incredulous that this country managed to separate the infrastructure from the operations for more than 30 years. That is the primary reason why people have spent so much time in the railways discussing not how you fix delays but whose fault it was and who pays the compensation for them. The Japanese railways are renowned for their reliability, but one thing that the Japanese have never done is to contemplate splitting the infrastructure from the operations. That is what Great British Railways will solve.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, we will not get improvements in performance on the railways unless we also get improvements in productivity and efficiency of staff. In January this year, the RMT put out a press release boasting that it had secured a 3.8% pay rise for its Network Rail staff, with no productivity or efficiency conditions attached. Can the noble Lord say whether Ministers will be insisting that future pay settlements will be directly linked to productivity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The previous Network Rail pay settlement, which was carried out but curiously not much publicised by the Government, produced not only a one-off productivity improvement by a substantial amount but continuing productivity, so the staff involved in the pay deal for Network Rail this year are delivering increased productivity compared with that agreed at the time of the previous pay rise. This Government have been able to do that. We have settled over 50 pay deals in the last 12 months with virtually no industrial action, which is entirely contrary to the record of the previous Government.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain whether, in addition to making the trains run on time, he has any plans with Great British Railways to offer some food on the trains? My journey from Cornwall took five hours and we were offered sandwiches, but they had not arrived. It was the same last week: we were offered sandwiches, but they did not arrive. The staff are doing their best to serve customers, but if they cannot supply sandwiches, maybe that should be put out to the private sector.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Of course, the irony of my noble friend’s journey to Fowey last week is that it was the private sector train company that failed to supply the sandwiches to him. It is a serious point and his complaint has been well aired, because he wrote to me, he wrote to the managing director of the train company, I think he wrote to the Secretary of State and he has now raised in the House of Lords that the trolley did not have any sandwiches on it. It is a valid point that the customer offer which is made to people should be reliable, and a five-hour journey without anything to eat is not much fun. I hope he got a drink though.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

I have a very brief question, because I know we are supposed to be brief. Does the Minister think that the quality of our transport services is helping us to deal with the problem of underemployment in this country, or is the idea of having to use the transport system a further disincentive to go into work?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is a very reasonable point. People should be able to rely on public transport, particularly those who do not have access to a car of their own. One reason why I am so passionate, and the Government are passionate, about good performance on the railway, and indeed on the rest of the public transport system, is so that people can rely on it to go to work and create economic growth in this country.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

When will we be able to catch an HS2 train to Birmingham? This is a fully integrated, nationalised railway with enormous financial resource, but it never goes anywhere.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord needs to get up to speed with the history of HS2, because it has been comprehensively mismanaged by every Government who have had anything to do with it, and by the board and, sadly, by the management of the company that is building it. This Government have faced the most enormous task of sorting it out. I know that Mark Wild, who successfully managed to open the Elizabeth line after many delays from the people who were constructing it, and Mike Brown, who is the chair of HS2, are working as hard as they can to get HS2 open as soon as they can, having first established how much it will cost and how long it will take to deliver—which are two facts that were unavailable at the time this Government took office.

Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument has two objectives. The first is to amend Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation to give the Civil Aviation Authority more flexibility to grant exemptions to the basic regulation. The second is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable further legislation later this year in order to bring the UK into line with international requirements on how far aircraft can operate from diversion airports.

This instrument was originally laid before Parliament in January this year as a negative procedure statutory instrument, in accordance with the procedures set out in the retained EU law Act 2023. Following scrutiny by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments during the sift, the Transport Committee recommended that this instrument be relaid as an affirmative SI. The Government accepted that recommendation, and the instrument was relaid as an affirmative SI in January.

During that sift, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about how genuinely exceptional exemptions to Article 71 would be, given the suggestion that they would be used to facilitate day-to-day activities, and the JCSI raised a concern that

“the changes proposed by this instrument could represent a significant diminution of existing regulatory protections”.

Once the instrument had been relaid, the SLSC reiterated its original concerns and the JCSI had no comments. I will go into the detail of the amendments and then address those concerns.

Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation sets out the conditions under which the Civil Aviation Authority may grant an exemption to the basic regulation for an applicant. A legacy of EU legislation, the existing wording of the law means that the CAA can grant an exception in only two possible scenarios: urgent unforeseeable circumstances, and urgent operational needs. This means that the CAA cannot issue exemptions for foreseeable circumstances with no urgent operational need, such as festivals or testing drones—consider, for example, the Formula 1 races at Silverstone, which handle around 1,000 helicopters over four days.

Under the assimilated aviation law, which is a legacy of the UK’s membership of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency—the EASA—all the basic requirements of the basic regulation would need to be met. This legislation was developed with the requirements of airports providing a permanent service in mind; such requirements are disproportionate for a short event. Currently, the CAA cannot grant exemptions for these events because they are yearly, predictable and foreseeable, even though granting an exemption would clearly enhance safety.

In addition, this amendment will allow the CAA to grant exemptions to businesses in order to enable the testing of new and innovative technologies. Today, that is difficult because many of the requirements of Article 71 do not take into account future developments in technology, such as testing “beyond visual line of sight” drone flights in airspace that is not separated from regular air traffic. The existing rules were made before current “beyond visual line of sight” developments, and it is difficult for the CAA to grant exemptions specifically for testing as testing is usually neither urgent nor unforeseeable. By enabling exemptions to be granted beyond urgent operational needs or urgent unforeseeable circumstances, the UK aviation sector will be able to trial and test new technologies more easily.

As the UK has now left both the European Union and the EASA, the Government are now able to amend Article 71 to give the CAA more flexibility to support safety and innovation. The CAA has developed a robust framework to ensure that exemptions granted under Article 71 will not degrade safety. Each request will be risk assessed by the CAA’s aviation safety experts and will be granted only if they believe that the exemption will maintain a high standard of safety and there is no other way of achieving the same goal. The CAA will examine each request individually, and just because the request has been granted once, it will not then set a precedent for future exemptions.

These criteria are deliberately strict, ensuring that the CAA considers the existing protection requirements for aircraft noise, fuel venting and engine emissions, whether decisions are non-discriminatory, the creation of unreasonable working conditions or safety risks, and whether exemptions support public protection and broader aerospace development. This means that while exemptions will be given for day-to-day activities such as testing, each exemption will still be exceptional. The CAA’s framework will ensure that each request is scrutinised and granted only if applicants can demonstrate high levels of aviation safety, as well as setting out a path to future full regulatory compliance. Regulatory protections will remain and my officials will continue to work closely with the CAA to oversee how the new exemption process is used.

I note that during the consultation, 42 of the 51 respondents supported the amendments to Article 71. One respondent, Unite the Union, raised concerns that exemptions might be granted on a regular basis, particularly where such exemptions could weaken the working conditions of crew onboard aircraft. I assure noble Lords that exemptions will be granted only where a high level of safety can be assured, and the CAA must and will carefully consider the impact of exemptions on working conditions.

I turn to the second objective of this SI, which is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable amendments later this year, which will allow operators of two-engine aircraft more flexibility in how far they operate from diversion airports. Operators of aircraft with more than two engines will now also need to consider their distance from diversion airports. This change will bring the UK into line with international requirements. These amendments could not be introduced without removing the criminal sanction, as the powers needed to amend provisions with criminal sanctions are contained in the retained EU law Act, which expires in June this year. The Civil Aviation Authority has never brought a prosecution under this provision, and I am confident that it already has sufficient regulatory tools to ensure compliance without relying on a criminal offence—for instance, by revoking approvals to fly extended diversion time operations or by limiting operators’ air operator certificates.

On the wider powers gap issue in relation to criminal sanctions, the Government are aware of the powers gap. We are reviewing whether existing powers on the statute book may be able to fill the gap, and we are also considering introducing primary legislation when parliamentary time allows—I await with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. I beg to move.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the Minister mentioned, has looked at this and suggested that the House may wish to seek assurances from the Minister regarding the use of exemptions. In the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday, the Minister said:

“I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]


The issue that I wish to question the Minister on is the capacity of the CAA to handle the various applications. Will he also address the issue of the testing by companies of new products, either aircraft or drones? We know of public events where there are a large number of helicopter flights coming in—golf tournaments, for example; I do not know whether Glastonbury has a lot of helicopter traffic—and I presume that these are covered by this sort of thing.

Without wishing to see things kept overly tight, particularly when we would like to see and encourage companies to develop new products—after all, this country has a tried and tested record of innovation in the aviation sector—the question is: who is overseeing the overseers in this case? I presume it has to be the CAA and the Department for Transport, ultimately, but is there sufficient capacity? Does the Minister expect an increase in these applications, or will it be only short term? If he does, is the capacity there and is his department sufficiently well organised to oversee that process?

The issue, I presume, comes down to the definition of “exceptional”. The Minister in the other place said:

“The shadow Minister asked me to say a little more about what we mean by ‘exceptional’. These exceptions will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way for the applicant to achieve the aims that have been put forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]


He went on to give some examples.

This is a fairly straightforward regulation, but whenever regulations change there is always the risk that the organisation overseeing them may not be as fully prepared as we would like. I perfectly understand the Minister’s position on the powers that have not been used; it seems that there are alternative ways of dealing with those matters without having to regulate any further.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I hope that the Minister and noble Lords do not object, but I want to say something which takes me a little distance from the statutory instrument. One understands that the Department for Transport itself is in the throes of a reorganisation in which all its operational activities and expertise are being thrown out the door. All the people who know about running trains have been sent off to Waterloo to merge with Network Rail. We are now going to have no in-house expertise on aviation matters, because we will rely entirely on the Civil Aviation Authority. None of this has been discussed, but I think it is a matter of great interest to noble Lords. Although I am straying beyond the statutory instrument, I certainly think that we can be up for debating this separately in the course of the next couple of months, is the Minister willing to say today what is going on in his department about reorganisation? What change is it envisaging? What staff are leaving? How does he see the shape, role and function of the department going forward, following this transformation that apparently is in hand?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, quoted the Minister in the other place in two respects, and because he quoted him, I do not feel I need to add to either of the things that he said in this Committee this afternoon.

On the question about testing how the Civil Aviation Authority assures itself that operators are acting safely, I have faith in the Civil Aviation Authority. This would not have come forward, fundamentally, if the Civil Aviation Authority was not confident that it was capable of overseeing the changing regulations that are being proposed today. It oversees and audits approval holders and individuals granted privileges, as set out in the regulation. That includes monitoring the effectiveness of organisations’ quality and safety management systems. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to the policy framework for assessing requests for exemptions, which she helpfully asked for during the briefing that she referred to. The Civil Aviation Authority will seek clear justification, demonstrating compliance with the new policy, supported by a robust and documented safety risk assessment, showing that high safety standards can be maintained.

The Civil Aviation Authority is overseen by the department through the State Safety Board, which is a formal body. In addition, my officials maintain a good working relationship with the UK’s independent regulator, the CAA, which is responsible for enforcing all the aviation safety regulations. As I say, I am very confident that the Civil Aviation Authority has the resources to carry out what this statutory instrument is seeking to do. Of course, it has the option of rejecting applications if it cannot resource looking at individuals.

I believe I have answered the point about policy raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. She also raised the question about reporting on actions that have been taken by the CAA. The CAA will publish details of general exemptions applied to defined classes, such as all operators involved in short-term events. It will not publish all exemptions due to concerns about exposing commercially sensitive information for technical developments. I can see the noble Baroness nodding, and I am sure that that is right, because it will also have a duty of protecting people’s commercial positions.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the European Union reset. These powers would only be changed if we joined the EASA, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, which is the organisation I previously referred to. We would have to have rejoined that to make a change to these powers again. I am not aware of any proposal to rejoin the European Union Aviation Safety Agency as part of the reset, which is why we are bringing this forward today.

The noble Lord referred to the gap in powers. I already said that I am awaiting with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. He will be aware that this first parliamentary session has been a long one, so the Government need to take the opportunity of putting forward legislation when they can. I cannot say any more about that, but I do not think that he will find that the gap in powers is quite the terrible thing that he describes.

The noble Lord lastly referred to the reorganisation of the Department for Transport. Today I have signed off an Answer to a Written Parliamentary Question from the other place. There is a reorganisation; a number of people have not moved to join Network Rail—they have moved to join DfT Operator as a precursor to the radical programme of railway reform that the Government put in their manifesto and have committed themselves to. That still leaves—and the Answer to the Parliamentary Question will say so in the other place—no less than 477 people who work on railway policy and HS2. We are not leaving the department bereft of people. I expect that number may go down over time as reform is finished, but that has no effect on the rest of the department, and there is no suggestion in that change that the department is making any change which will affect its capabilities in supervising aviation or the Civil Aviation Authority.

For any question that I have failed to answer or to which I have not given a sufficient answer, I am happy to write as soon as possible. In conclusion, the safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for the Government. The Government are committed to ensuring that we maintain our exemplary record for aviation safety; these regulations represent a further step in doing so. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

1. That if—

(a) a High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is first brought to this House from the House of Commons in this Session or in any subsequent Session of this Parliament, and

(b) proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in the Session in which the Bill is so brought (“Session A”),

further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which Session A ends until the Session that follows it (“Session B”).

2. That if, where paragraph 1 applies, a Bill in the same terms as those in which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stood when it was brought to this House in Session A is brought from the House of Commons in Session B—

(a) the proceedings on the Bill in Session B shall be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in Session A;

(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in Session A or in any relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session B;

(c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in relation to the Bill in Session A shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session B; and

(d) if there is outstanding any petition deposited against the Bill in accordance with an order of the House—

(i) any such petition shall be taken to be deposited against the Bill in Session B and shall stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in Session B; and

(ii) any minutes of evidence taken before a select committee on the Bill in Session A shall stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in Session B.

3. That if, where paragraph 2 applies and Session B is a Session of this Parliament, the proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in Session B—

(a) further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which Session B ends until the Session that follows it (“Session C”), and

(b) paragraph 2 shall apply as if—

(i) references to Session A were to Session B, and

(ii) references to Session B were to Session C.

4. That paragraph 3 shall apply again, with the appropriate modifications, if—

(a) Session C is a Session of this Parliament, and

(b) the proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in Session C.

5. That paragraph 3 shall apply again, with the appropriate modifications, in relation to any Session of this Parliament subsequent to Session C, if the proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in that subsequent Session.

6. In paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the references to a High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill include references to any Bill previously of that name but the name of which was amended by the House of Commons prior to the Bill being brought to this House.

7. In paragraphs 1 and 3 above, the references to further proceedings do not include proceedings under Standing Order 83A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).

8. For the purposes of paragraph 2 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session—

(a) Session 2021-22;

(b) Session 2022-23;

(c) Session 2023-24;

(d) except where the Bill is first brought to this House from the House of Commons in this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the Session in which the Bill is so brought.

Motion agreed.

Rail Freight

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards achieving their target to increase rail freight volumes by 75 per cent by 2050.

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

My Lords, this Government have a clear ambition for rail freight growth, with a target of 75% by 2050, and we continue to work collaboratively with freight operators and Network Rail. My department’s modal shift revenue support programme and Network Rail’s access charges discount policy have been hugely successful, awarding £39 million over two years to eight freight operators and supporting 19 new flows. We continue to progress the Railways Bill, which will enable GBR to further support rail freight growth with the first ever statutory target for growth.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is encouraging to hear the Minister repeat the Government’s commitment to that target, which they inherited, of course, from the previous Government and which we support. However, the rail freight industry is, I think, finding it increasingly unconvincing, because the Government have refused, so far at least, to put this target into the Bill which is currently in the other place. They are leaving it, in effect, to the discretion of Great British Railways, which will of course be in competition with the freight operators for the very same paths on the railway. Would the Government not like to strengthen this target by making it part of the statutory obligation imposed upon Great British Railways in the Bill?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government have been quite clear that setting a statutory target is in the Bill, and we have also been clear that it is 75%. In practice, that protects those freight paths that have been in the timetable for a long time but are not necessarily used other than at short notice. That is the reason for the proposed statutory inclusion in the Bill. For that reason, GBR will not be in competition for those paths. Those paths will have to be reserved in order to allow the target to be effective in the future.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned the issue of competition for rail freight. I am pleased to hear him say that the Government are keen to grow rail freight, but it is difficult to see, in the text of the Bill, how Great British Railways, which will have control of most passenger services as well as access to the track, will be able to treat fairly open access passenger operators and rail freight operators. Is this something on which the Government have consulted the Competition and Markets Authority to see whether there is any potential for conflicts of interest?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Railways Bill is framed to give Great British Railways the authority, for the first time in over 30 years, to control access to the railway and make sure that it is fairly distributed and serves the nation’s economic and social purposes. That is in Clause 60. Clause 63 talks about GBR operating passenger services. The reason that the freight target is specified in the Bill is so that GBR will have the obligation to leave both freight paths that are used in the timetable for freight trains and those paths that are not used but will be needed for the expansion of freight services and are needed at short notice to be used by freight operators.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, what consideration are the Government giving to increasing the capacity at London Gateway, Britain’s second largest container port, by the electrification of just three miles of track to the port, which would allow for the use of faster electric locomotives for freight?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Baroness asked me that question. Network Rail has found some money to do studies on greater access to London Gateway, and that is the right thing to do. The question of electrification is one of the subjects that we need to discuss with the port’s owners, DP World. The other subject is the level crossings, which are probably a greater barrier to more freight trains there. I have recently written to the local district council about this, and my department is looking to have a meeting with DP World, Network Rail and the freight operators to decide how best to take that forward.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government speed up digital signalling and proper traffic information in the cab so that there can be more slots for all types of rail traffic, because obviously we want to expand rather more than the Government are suggesting in the short term?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

How right the noble Lord is. The digital signalling programme for the east coast main line does absolutely as he describes, which is to give more capacity on the existing track. It is in train, as far as I know; it is on target and on budget for the south end of the east coast main line. It is subscribed to by all the operators, including all the freight operators that use it. One of its principal objectives is to get more train paths out of the same railway.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we are to get a substantial move of freight on to the railways, we need to move to palletisation as opposed to containerisation as the principal unit that is used, and that to do that we need to construct proper freight villages in order to have the transfer that is necessary, and that without those infrastructure improvements we will not get to the target?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It was a privilege for me to open the ninth Maritime Transport rail freight hub in Northampton about six weeks ago. I had a long discussion with John Williams, the chief executive, and we discussed precisely that. We were discussing how we should measure this, because tonnage is maybe not the best way of measuring container loads—in fact, the numbers of containers might be a better method of doing it, if we could find a way. The Government are very active in this, as am I personally. It is clear that intermodal container traffic, and indeed national container traffic, is the largest growth feature of this market and we should do everything we can to encourage it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there are a number of existing barriers to rail freight, particularly between East Anglia, the port of Felixstowe, north Yorkshire and the rest of the north of England. One of the barriers is the urgent upgrade needed to Haughley junction. Does the Minister have a timetable for when that upgrade will be made?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There is no use upgrading Haughley junction without upgrading Ely. Previous Governments have not found the money to do that and, regrettably, in the financial circumstances that this Government find themselves, we have not so far found it either. But I have had some useful discussions with local Members of Parliament and the combined authority mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough about what we can do both to improve the business case for Haughley and Ely junctions and to reduce the cost. One of the crippling costs of that upgrade is the number of level crossings needed because East Anglia is very flat; there may be some things that local highway authorities can do which would make that project easier to do and give it a better business case in the future.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the secrets of growing rail freight is to increase the versatility of freight locomotives? In that context, will he welcome the development of tri-mode freight locomotives—electric, battery or diesel—so that they are able to run anywhere in the country?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend clearly knows a lot about it—probably more than I do—but I was at the launch of the Class 99 locomotives last autumn, which I think are the ones he is referring to. There are 30 being leased and operated through GB Railfreight, and he is right that they will be versatile to run anywhere. In fact, that may solve the issue at London Gateway port that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to, because if there were battery-electric locomotives then we would not need fixed electrification. It is right that the rail freight fleet needs to be updated. That investment is very welcome, and I expect it to be followed by investment by the other freight operators which believe that there is a long-term future in freight on the railway.

Small Boat Deaths: Cranston Inquiry Report

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they intend to take in response to the Cranston Inquiry Report on small boat deaths, published on 5 February.

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

My Lords, this was a sobering report setting out the circumstances that led to the tragic loss of over 30 lives. Our sympathies remain with all those affected. Significant improvements have been made since 2021, including more people and assets, new technologies and strengthened departmental oversight. However, we must learn from the inquiry and do everything we can to prevent anything like it happening again. We are carefully considering the report and plan an interim response by the end of May.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend—he has answered half my question already. The report has highlighted that there are very serious deficiencies in our ability to rescue people at sea and that we compare unfavourably with Italy and Greece, which have more and better-equipped boats. The RNLI and Border Force do a wonderful job in trying to save lives, but they are not well equipped with their boats to do so. I hope the Minister will do all he can to implement as much of the Cranston report as possible as quickly as possible before the summer comes along and more people are liable to drown in the channel.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the first thing to say is that crossings of the English Channel in these circumstances are extraordinarily dangerous. Notwithstanding that, more than 152,000 people have been successfully rescued since November 2021. There are now five dedicated Border Security Command vessels in the channel available for search and rescue tasking; these successfully conduct approximately 93% of the rescues in the channel and are supported by RNLI vessels when required. I pay tribute, as I am sure the House also does, to the RNLI volunteers and indeed all those who contribute to life-saving in the English Channel and elsewhere. The Government recognise the gravity of the matters Sir Ross Cranston has reported on and are determined to take all actions necessary following his report.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this report follows on from a statement made by the UK Government on 4 February at the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. On safety at sea, it says that

“it is essential to promote a common, coherent and effective implementation of the legal framework for search and rescue policies in Europe and to help member States to strengthen their solidarity”.

In respect of England and France, can the Minister tell us how that statement will be put into effect?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that collaborative action with our neighbours is key to making the sea safer in these circumstances. It is clear to me from the actions taken before the report was published and from what has been going on since that relationships with the French in particular, and the Belgians, are being pursued very seriously with a view to making sure that if there are any gaps, they are closed as much as possible.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I was pleased to have commissioned Sir Ross to conduct this inquiry and I place on record my thanks to him for his excellent report, which highlights the danger of channel crossings, the appalling organised crime groups that exploit vulnerable people and the difficulty for any Government in balancing border security and protecting life at sea. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government are going to come forward in May with an interim report. I urge him to look at the fantastic work His Majesty’s Coastguard does with its partners in the RNLI, and at strengthening its resources to make sure that we can protect life at sea while also ensuring that we have secure borders.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I compliment the noble Lord on instituting the report when he was Secretary of State, because losing more than 30 lives at sea is clearly a very serious matter. I have already said that there are now many more resources for Border Force, the coastguard and, when necessary, the RNLI, with a view to making sure that such a thing is never repeated.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, the Cranston report runs to over 400 pages. What is the most important lesson to be learnt from it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I spent most of last weekend reading the report—I do not claim to have read every word—but parts of it are extraordinarily harrowing because they comprise evidence from two survivors. It is clear that, as a consequence, a large number of actions are needed. Fundamentally, there were insufficient resources, and insufficient process was followed in the right way, which contributed to this tragedy.

On the other hand, on the night when this occurred, there was also a large number of rescues, and we should at least be proud that many people contributed to rescuing numbers well into three figures, so not all is wrong. As always, the trick with these things is to be positive about the changes that need to be made and recognise the heroism and bravery of those who go out to sea at night in very difficult conditions, but also to make sure that the backing and numbers are there for them to operate safely and do their jobs properly.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I think we would all agree that the best way to reduce the number of people dying in the English Channel is to reduce the number of unsuitable boats crossing the English Channel. The Government were elected on a pledge to smash the gangs. How is that going, and is the effort going to be helped or hindered by the sudden resignation after only 18 months of the head of UK Border Security Command?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government are taking strong, decisive action to do something about this issue. In particular, we are removing around 60,000 people who had no right to remain, and the historic deal with the French, which means that those who arrive are now being detained and sent back, is considerable evidence that the Government are not slacking on this matter.

We should pay tribute to Martin Hewitt, who established Border Security Command. In his time as commander, he has helped to deliver landmark legislation and put in place leadership and governance. We will make an announcement on his successor in due course.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Four years ago, the Government chose not to act on Alexander Downer’s recommendation to then Home Secretary Patel that responsibility for search and rescue in the channel pass from Border Force and the Home Office to the coastguard and the Department for Transport. The Cranston report now recommends that that recommendation from Downer be acted on. Will the Government act on it? If not, why not?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Cranston report makes a number of recommendations. The actions to be taken my department in order to get the best possible outcome must consider all the recommendations together, so I am not going to mention any one particular action at this moment in time. However, the department is committed to taking serious note of everything Sir Ross said and to answering all the points made by him, both in the interim report and thereafter.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, since 2024, the Government have given the French gendarmerie £500 million plus. Does the Minister feel that the French have done enough to make good use of that money?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am not going to comment on the actions of our near neighbour. There is more collaboration now than there was. The number of boats that arrived last year, in 2025, was half that in 2022. We need to get on with them sufficiently for both sides to deal with this problem together.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, we know that war and conflict is the key driver of the number of refugees and asylum seekers. Given the state of the world, what is my noble friend the Minister’s assessment of the impact of that on the resources that will be needed to ensure safe passage?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am afraid that this particular Minister is ill qualified to work out the effects of international conflict. What I should say in respect of those matters for which the department is responsible is that we have to be ready for all the numbers in order to ensure the safety at sea of all those who go to sea, however they go to sea.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, as is evident on the internet, social media is used to facilitate illegal migration in numerous countries globally, serving as a key tool for people smugglers to advertise their services. What are the Government doing to stop this advertising of illegal migration on social media?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government are committed to taking action in every way they can. Since I do not deal with social media—I have plenty to do with transport—if there is any more to say to the noble Lord on this matter, I shall write to him.

Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 February be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 23 March. Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

Motion agreed.

Public Transport: Accessibility

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure public transport is fully accessible.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to improving public transport services so they enable disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. The Bus Services Act 2025 and the Railways Bill both include a comprehensive package of measures to improve the accessibility of public transport. We have also committed to developing an accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local transport authorities, driving improvement towards a barrier-free transport system.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, given that the Government have cancelled a significant number of Access for All schemes which had not been fully funded, will the Minister commit to a replacement long-term programme of accessibility works on the railway to ensure that there is a pipeline of improvements, and to help the supply chain have the confidence to invest in this area?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The oldest railway in the world still needs better accessibility at many stations, between platforms and trains, and in information and customer service. We have committed to more Access for All schemes at stations following the recent spending review and intend to set out clearer criteria for future such schemes, which we would expect to fund in future spending reviews and with third-party contributions. The long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy will embrace easier access on to and within trains. The results of all this will produce a clearer future pipeline for the supply chain.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the work he has done on accessibility; he has real experience and commitment. To that end, does he consider so-called floating bus stops to be inclusive by design and accessible for all? That is but one example; whether it is trains, taxis, buses, streets or stations, there are common issues of exclusion and inaccessibility. Does he agree that, tragically, the truth is that in the UK we do not currently have public transport—we have transport for some of the public, some of the time?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I absolutely respect the noble Lord’s determination in the matter of people with any disability accessing public transport. A lot has been done on the accessibility of the bus service, and the noble Lord knows that during the passage of the Bus Services Act, we agreed to cease those particularly difficult propositions whereby you alighted from a bus or got on to a bus directly from a cycle path, which do not work and clearly are not sustainable. On floating bus stops, the noble Lord knows that we paused them and that we have published a better definition of a floating bus stop, which is still a bus stop. The Government intend to proceed with a balance of interests of both cyclists’ and bus users’ safety, which includes disabled people.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, thousands of new trains and carriages are coming into service on the national, regional and underground networks between 2025 and 2030. The Minister referenced the rolling stock strategy, but how many of these trains will exceed the minimum legislative compliance for accessibility, and how many will have a proper platform-to-train interface? I ask this after recently negotiating what is now known as “the leap” at Norbiton station—which, ironically, is the main transport access to Kingston Hospital.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: there are far too many varieties of train on the national network. While it has been possible to build and operate trains with level access to at least normal height platforms, that has not been and still is not a consistent feature of recent train orders. One of the reasons for a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy is to embed level boarding in all future train orders. However, the noble Baroness also knows that these things last for a very long time and sadly, some of the vehicles that have been bought will last for the next 30 years. It is quite difficult to fix that, but she is right that it does need to be fixed.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the owner of a wheelchair-accessible taxi. What is the Minister’s ambitious timetable to finish the work to make all public transport wheelchair accessible?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I rather thought that the noble Lord would ask me that question, since I only met him at 11.30 am this morning to discuss the same issue. His determination to make taxis fully accessible is admirable. However, since taxis are intrinsically part of a service of both taxi and private hire vehicles, and 87% of the total provision of private hire vehicles is not taxis, the Government are determined to embrace his determination with our own determination to make the whole provision suitable throughout England for wheelchair users and people with all disabilities. We will have more to say on Report of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in this House shortly, when we deal with the amendments the noble Lord has tabled.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, would it not help the standardisation of trains if we ensured that the trains we purchase—whether for the rail network, the Underground or even the light railway systems—are produced in this country by British workers?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. The variation in orders for railway rolling stock has been feast and famine. It resulted in the closure of several manufacturing facilities over the last 30 years, and there is now one manufacturing plant and three assembly plants. One of the determinations we have is that the long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy produces a forward order book which is sufficient to keep those plants and the workers who work in them running for the long-term future.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, accessibility into Macclesfield station is severely curtailed for disabled people. The booking hall has been refurbished, which is most welcome, but it would be helpful if there was a completion date. Can the Minister look into this matter? The travelling public understand that it takes time to do refurbishments, but it would be helpful if they had a completion date as the dates keep changing at Macclesfield.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am sorry—I know quite a lot about the railway system, but I do not know the completion date for the station works at Macclesfield. I will find out for the noble Lord and write to him.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I come back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Borwick. Is the Government’s new position that they would make taxis accessible in the rest of the country outside London, where they are already accessible, but they feel inhibited in doing so because they cannot make private hire vehicles—a completely distinct legal category —accessible at the same time? Is that the Government’s current position? Is that what the Minister said?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I do not think that is what I said, because if I meant to say what the noble Lord said, I would have said it. The point is that the definition of “taxi” is venerable and that taxis, in various forms, have been on our streets for several hundred years. Private vehicle hire, as the noble Lord knows, has been legitimised in London only recently and, in the rest of the country, is quite different from what it was 20 years. We need to make sure that the combined provision of those two types of vehicles, which provide what is nearly but not quite the same level of service, is suitable for the users of those services throughout the various rural and urban areas of England.

The present design of accessible taxi of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, is a beautiful vehicle that is largely used only in London because it is so expensive. We need to make modifications to all taxi and private hire services, as the legislation is woefully out of date, and find a way to make them suitable for all people, both disabled and non-disabled, who seek to use them as means to get around their towns, cities and countryside.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend welcome the reopening of Kings Heath station, which was closed in the Second World War? It is a fully accessible station, and the first trains will go through it on 7 April.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am delighted that my noble friend raised that. It is one of several stations that have been completed in the West Midlands; all are accessible and all will make travel around the West Midlands easier, which will improve economic growth and access to jobs and homes.

Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, these regulations will lower the minimum age at which the Office of Rail and Road, ORR, can issue a train driving licence to a person to drive trains on the mainline railway in Great Britain from 20 to 18. Under the regime, applicants will continue to be required to satisfy the same conditions for driving trains contained in the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010, hereafter called the 2010 regulations. These licence conditions will remain unchanged. They include completion of at least nine years of primary and secondary education or vocational training equivalent to level 3 qualifications, and proof of passing medical, psychological fitness and general professional competence examinations.

By lowering the minimum age from 20 to 18, these regulations will bring Britain into line with several other countries including Germany, the Netherlands and Australia. They will also be consistent with the London Underground, where professional operating roles can begin at 18. These regulations will not change the minimum age to be a train driver in the Channel Tunnel, which will remain at 20, consistent with our international obligations.

I will begin by providing background information on the regulatory framework and the case for lowering the minimum age to be a train driver. The railway network currently depends on approximately 19,000 train drivers. These drivers operate passenger and freight services across the country. The 2010 regulations established the legal conditions required to drive trains on the mainline railway and cover both licences and certificates.

A train driving licence confirms that a driver has been medically and psychologically assessed as fit and has passed a general competence examination in train driving. As long as the driver continues to meet these conditions, the licence remains valid for 10 years. Drivers must also hold an employer-issued certificate showing that they are trained and authorised to drive specific trains on specific routes. A driver must hold both documents.

The 2010 regulations implemented the EU train driving directive, which sets a default minimum licensing age of 20 across the EU. The directive also allowed member states to adopt a lower age of 18 for domestic services, but the United Kingdom did not choose to do this in 2009. Since then, as I have mentioned, several countries have successfully implemented a lower age limit and others are actively considering it, including Japan.

In 2019 the Rail Safety and Standards Board, RSSB, undertook research to look at the case for lowering the minimum age in Britain. It published its findings in February 2024. The RSSB found that 18 and 19 year-olds can drive trains safely and professionally when held to the same training, assessment and supervision standards as older recruits. At the same time, lowering the age limit widens the talent pool, increasing driver numbers and improving representation.

The research found that experience, not age, is the determining factor in whether a new entrant to the profession will enjoy a successful career. This experience is gained through practice and exposure to train driving. Experience is a central feature of train driver training and can be gained through a structured training programme. Training and assessment typically take between 12 and 18 months and involve several months of classroom and simulator learning, alongside 225-plus hours of practical train driving. This is followed by mandatory examinations and post-qualification monitoring and assessments.

Support for the policy was reaffirmed in a May 2023 post-implementation review, prompting the previous Conservative Government to consult on the proposal. The consultation, published in May 2025, showed broad support from major industry bodies, including ASLEF—the train drivers’ union—and train operators, although some stakeholders sought assurances about transition arrangements.

For this reason, on 7 May 2025 my department confirmed that we would move forward with lowering the minimum train driver age, subject to receiving an industry implementation plan that would then determine the timetable for changing the law. The Rail Delivery Group, working through the Train Drivers Academy, co-ordinated the industry’s response, gathering industry specialists to review existing arrangements and identify opportunities to optimise the system. The industry confirmed that existing safeguards, testing and supervision remain appropriate for younger entrants, but recommended that operators update their procedures and ensure staff understand how best to support new trainees. Overall, the implementation plan demonstrated that a lower minimum age for train driving can be introduced safely and without requiring major changes to core safety or competence management systems.

The department and the ORR approved the implementation plan in December and published it on GOV.UK on 19 March. The plan proposed several practical improvements that industry will now implement to strengthen recruitment, assessment and training for all new drivers, not just younger applicants. These include fairer and more transparent recruitment processes, clearer information about the role, better support for managers working with younger colleagues, more consistent industry-wide communication, and development of a simple and accessible recruitment portal. To help monitor arrangements, a study is proposed to monitor the progress of younger drivers over time, which will use a small group of pathfinder operators to test, refine and share effective approaches.

Taken together, the industry has produced a clear and evidence-based strategy that will help bring younger entrants into the profession safely and confidently. We are confident that these arrangements will be in place by June this year, which is why we have scheduled the legislative change to take effect on 30 June. From that date, young people will be eligible for train driving positions.

I turn to the reasons why the Government are bringing forward these regulations and their intended objectives. The rail industry is facing significant skills shortages across several key areas, particularly train driving. Around 25% of the current workforce is expected to reach retirement age by 2030. We project that there will be a deficit of 2,500 train drivers by the end of the decade unless action is taken.

In some parts of the country, such as Wales, that figure is closer to 38%. Even in London, where the proportion is lowest, nearly a quarter of drivers will retire within the same period. Without a concerted effort, this presents a retirement cliff edge that risks the industry’s ability to maintain current service levels. Operators are already experiencing difficulties in recruiting new drivers and are too frequently reliant on overtime to sustain timetables.

At the same time, there is clear evidence that the rail industry is not yet drawing on the full breadth of talent available. The workforce remains relatively homogenous: the average train driver is 47 years old, fewer than 11% of them are women and fewer than 13% come from minority-ethnic backgrounds. This points to significant untapped potential across the country.

Lowering the minimum age of train drivers will not on its own solve driver shortages, and it is still the responsibility of operators to take steps to secure the workforce they need. This change is, however, an important first step and will help the industry to build a more resilient pipeline of drivers by creating a clearer route for school leavers to enter the profession. This is because the current minimum age of 20 has for many years acted as an arbitrary barrier to entry. By that age, many young people have already committed to other employment, vocations or further study. Lowering the minimum age to 18 will allow operators to engage school leavers and offer a clear, structured route into a highly skilled and respected profession. In doing so, it will help the industry respond to the demographic and operational pressures it will face in the coming years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly his succinct response to the issues raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is good to have those comments on the record. It also saves me the trouble of asking all the questions that it asked and pressing him to give answers in his wrap-up. That has considerably shortened the remarks I entered the Room with.

On my part and on behalf of the Conservative Party, we wholly welcome this statutory instrument and the development it contains. It was, in fact, a Conservative initiative, as the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks. It is always good to have new measures that help youth employment at a time when youth unemployment is rising so dramatically under the current Government.

However, while I welcome the regulations wholeheartedly and without reservation, and while I think they are a very good thing in principle, I have slight doubts about whether they are going to make an enormous difference in practice. First, as the Government say, there is already a strong demand for train driver roles. Lots of people want to be train drivers, yet the fact is that the workforce is very restrictive. The Minister mentioned the retirement profile that is approaching, and I do not need to repeat that, but as far as I am aware, the average age is 47. Less than 3% are under 30, and women make up less than 11%. I wonder what has brought that about. It is not the restriction from the age of 20 that is causing that, and moving it to 18 is unlikely to change it, especially given that these are well-paid roles for which there is a great deal of demand.

What is in the process of happening as a result of the Government’s policies is that the Government are becoming the employer. The Government might say that Great British Rail is becoming the employer, but that does not exist and will not exists for several years at the rate things are going. The Government themselves—the Department for Transport, through its subsidiary companies—are the employer. So trying to understand, trying to tackle the root explanations for this strange profile in the workforce with a view to opening up the demographic of our train drivers, is a responsibility that falls squarely on the Government. I have not heard the Minister say what, as an employer, the Government are going to do about that.

I welcome that he has explained, I think quite convincingly, what he is going to do to make it easier for 16 to 18 year-olds to get on track in this direction, but what are they going to do about the existing profile of the workforce? How are they going to get people of other ages, who might be in their mid-20s or who might have done some other role, to enter the workforce at that stage—urgently—and get involved, given the cliff edge that we are promoting?

There are serious issues. We know that the workforce has tended to be restrictive about how one can enter it, and that its general profile is not reflective of the population at large. While I am not encouraging diversity for the sake of diversity, some of the problems we have are because the pool has been very narrow and widening it from 20 to 18 is not the key issue that will resolve it.

The Government’s impact assessment states that they have looked at other countries, including France, Germany and the Netherlands. If the Government are looking to other countries, they might also look to other working practices that need changing. One example is Sunday working, which in many countries is built into the contracts of train drivers. That is not so here, and we are dependent on voluntary overtime for Sunday running of the trains. It would be useful to know what the Government are thinking of doing about this as part of their general workforce programme, now that they are the employer.

On the question of age, I come back to the issue of Transport for London. The Government said that the age limit of 18 already applied at Transport for London, which is true, yet, as far as I can see, there are very few young drivers at Transport for London. We have the problem that, according to a freedom of information request, Transport for London does not currently employ a single train operator under the age of 23, and that person is a bit of an outlier anyway. Similar problems exist at Transport for London regarding retirement cliff edges, even though they operate this lower age limit for entry.

The general verdict is that we are in favour of the lower age limit and we recognise the problem, but we do not think this is enough. The Government will have to go a great deal further to solve the problems that the Minister set out in his opening remarks.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their attention and for their comments about this instrument.

In response to the noble Baroness’s questions, I reassure her that I and my officials are working closely with all the people involved to ensure that we can capture the interests of young people and promote awareness of the opportunities. I think it will be easier with 18 year-olds than it is with 20 year-olds because of the measures that I talked about, including apprenticeships and the prior preparation for these jobs. We know that it will be easier, and we intend to do a great deal to make sure that, across the industry, we engage young people and showcase what a career in train driving can offer.

The industry is more co-ordinated than it was. For example, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the train circulating to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the national railway system. It has a carriage devoted to interesting young people in railway careers, which has been enthusiastically welcomed wherever it has been. On a more long-term basis, operators will work closely with schools and colleges to deliver talks by other young train drivers, share experience and support activities that will inspire young people to consider this as a career. We know that we need to do more across communities, and the opportunity of engaging younger people will be a stimulus to achieve that.

The noble Baroness referred to the consultation in which there were objections from existing drivers to this proposal, but we do not believe it is correct to say that the majority of drivers opposed it. I have met a number who are very keen on it, including some people of a relatively venerable age. We think that the objections are individual and not representative of the wider industry view. Certainly ASLEF, the largest train-driving union, which represents 95% of drivers on the network, strongly supports the measure. For any who have expressed concerns, I believe they are mostly about somehow compromising the rigorous high standards that existing drivers must meet. I hope I have reassured the Committee that that will not be the case, that standards will continue to be as high as they are now and the full competitive selection process will still be followed. In any event, we will monitor how the new arrangements are working in practice as part of the longitudinal study.

Finally, the noble Baroness asked what additional measures the Government are actively considering. Aside from what I have already said about updating and widening access to existing rail apprenticeships, the Government recently invested £1 billion into the national youth employment initiative, which will help to create 200,000 new jobs and apprenticeships. Those measures will strengthen generally high quality apprenticeships, while the rail industry having the new apprenticeships that I talked about will encourage young people into this industry.

There are already key initiatives across the railway industry, including women in rail, the National Skills Academy for Rail’s routes into rail campaign, Network Rail’s inspire and STEM programmes and the young rail professionals network. We will make sure that they all embrace 18 year-olds in the future so that we get a more diverse pipeline of talent into the sector. My department will also look at potential reforms to the legislative framework for train driving to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and continues to equip train drivers with the training they need in this evolving industry. Of course, Great British Railways will make it easier to work with the industry to develop proposals for consultation over the next years.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his general support for this measure and concur with him that it was initiated by the previous Government. He asks what else we will do. One of the answers is that there is a much more vigorous recruitment programme than under the previous Government. Severe shortages have developed since Covid. The Government are working extremely hard to make up the deficiency in vacancies and work out properly what the establishment of the railway is. Several operators clearly lost sight of that in the previous regime. We will raise the railway’s profile with schools and use the precedent of the bus industry, which similarly reduced the age some time ago and has found a good source of younger people.

The noble Lord referred to Sundays not being part of the working week. That is a real problem, and the industry has not been consistent on it. Some employers have Sundays within the working week. The Secretary of State in the other place has said a number of times that it is time that the railway employed people for seven days a week, since that is how it works. That will encourage employment characteristics that are more like the rest of the railway and, we hope, encourage people into the industry as well.

Lastly, the noble Lord raised the Underground’s lower limit and its apparent absence of young people as a consequence. My own surmise is that—I will write to him if this differs—recruitment to fill the night Tube, which he will recall, has distorted the age profile simply because there was a large recruitment of drivers for it. Subsequently, employment conditions changed again, and those people are now part of the normal workforce, so that distorted the age profile.

I hope that I have satisfactorily answered all the questions from noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. All that remains for me is to beg the Committee to consider the statutory instrument.

Motion agreed.