English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I start by apologising for not having spoken at Second Reading.

I will speak to a number of amendments in this group standing in my name and, with the indulgence of the Committee, I will speak also to Amendment 112 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who, unfortunately, cannot be in her place today. These amendments relate to Clause 23, which introduces Schedule 5, relating to new provisions in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, creating, in effect, a new local licensing framework for micromobility vehicles.

Let me say at the outset that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked some very interesting questions about the scope of what should be included here, and I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.

Amendments 105 and 106 in my name also relate to the definition of “passenger micromobility vehicles”. As drafted, the Bill currently allows the Secretary of State to prescribe further categories of vehicle by regulation at a later date, as appears in Schedule 5 to the Bill, on page 139, in addition to an “electronically assisted pedal cycle”. So a “passenger micromobility vehicle” means

“a pedal cycle … an electrically assisted pedal cycle, or … a micromobility vehicle that … is designed or adapted to carry one or more individuals, and … is of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

The “and” there is crucial. We are all aware of micromobility vehicles that are not pedal cycles or electrically assisted pedal cycles, such as e-scooters and things of that sort. They would have to be designated by the Secretary of State in order to be included in the scope of the Bill.

I do not know why that has to happen. I do not see why the Government cannot be clear about what this covers and cover it from the outset, not by way of regulation later, which may or may not happen; the remarks made by the noble Baroness about pedicabs and how long these things take to happen are salutary in this respect. So my reason for tabling these amendments is to probe why those categories are not clearly and properly defined in the Bill at the outset and why we will have to wait for regulations later.

My Amendment 107 addresses the exemption provisions. Schedule 5 permits the Secretary of State, again by regulation, to create further exemptions from what may otherwise be criminal prohibitions. So criminal offences will be created by the Bill, or the Act when it comes into force. On the face of the Act, certain things will be exempt from those criminal provisions—that is fine; not everything has to be criminal, and you might want some exemptions—but the Secretary of State may want to add to them later. Thus, through regulation, not an Act of Parliament, there will be changing and meddling with the criminal law and criminal liability. Even though it is moving in the right direction, I do not think that regulation by the Secretary of State is an ideal way for the criminal law in this country to be changed. So the Government should be clear on what additional exemptions they are thinking of producing, and, if possible, those should be included in the Bill.

Amendment 110 is an amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, which requires local highways authorities to create sufficient space for micromobility vehicles. I have suggested the deletion of “sufficient”. This is probing, to some extent, but “sufficient” creates an unlimited obligation on the part of the local highways authority. What is sufficient? It is sufficient to meet demand. If the demand increases, more space must be produced. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, seems to think that this might be quite attractive, because it would force out private motor vehicles, which would have no such prior claim on the highway.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

114A: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Parking charges and strategic authorities: restriction of powers(1) In section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (designation of paying parking places on highways), after subsection (1A) insert—“(1B) A combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority may not make an order under subsection (1).”(2) In section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1994 (financial provisions relating to designation orders), after subsection (9) insert—“(9A) A combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority may not undertake any activity provided for under this section.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent mayors of CCAs from increasing charges or penalties for vehicle parking, and from using proceeds of those charges, to ensure local communities maintain control of these matters and cannot be imposed upon.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly on Amendment 114A, which is genuinely probing. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that parking enforcement and the charges associated with it remain with the lowest-tier authority, as they currently are, and are not subsumed into a combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority and with them, presumably, the money that flows from them. A matter of minutes ago, the Minister said that local leaders know their area best, and it should be local leaders who are responsible for enforcement and the funding that comes from it.

If the Government’s intention is that that responsibility and funding stream should migrate away from local authorities that have had it in the past up to these new combined authorities, they should say so now. If that is not their intention, it would also be helpful to know that because, once we have established that clearly, it should be possible to return to the matter on Report with a proper conservative approach.

There are two other amendments in this group, one of which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and concerns pavement parking—a matter of considerable concern to people who are blind or mobility impaired in a number of ways. I look forward to hearing the case for that amendment, which I think it is going to be spoken to, and to the Government’s response.

Finally, there is an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which, putting it in blunt terms, seeks to extend civil enforcement powers for parking from London to the rest of the country. Again, I will listen very carefully to the proposal, but I am not unsympathetic to it in principle as I currently understand it, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 121A on behalf of my noble friend Lord Blunkett who sends his apologies to the Committee this afternoon. He has a long-standing appointment that he could not cancel, so he asked me to speak to his amendment on his behalf. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has expressed, I suspect, a bit of sympathy towards this amendment, and so he should. The Walk Wheel Cycle Trust has provided a detailed briefing on this amendment which sets out a very good case.

Essentially, the amendment would provide the local transport authority or designated upper-tier local authority outside London with the power to prohibit pavement parking in its local area, and provide, where sensible, for exemptions.

The case is very straightforward. Essentially, pavement parking is a threat and a jeopardy to anybody with a disability, and in particular those who are partially sighted or blind, and anyone with a mobility impairment. Polling on the subject suggests that 73% of those with a disability would support local authorities enforcing against pavement parking. For those who are partially sighted, the percentage is even higher.

The truth is that barriers such as pavement parking put people off travelling. According to a national travel survey, disabled people take 25% fewer trips than non-disabled people because they fear the consequences of using pavements that have cars parked on them, so there is a real transport accessibility gap.

Some 41% of individuals who responded to the Government’s consultation on this subject felt that they would leave home more often if there was an end to pavement parking. Pavement parking affects us all, not just those who have disabilities. In particular, it forces people off footpaths or pavements on to the road, which of course can be very dangerous. Another problem that perhaps is not stated as much as it should be is that it damages pavements, causing them to be even less safe to use. Cars parking on pavements reduces walking and wheeling and we should take note of that and make our streets genuinely more accessible, free and easy for all to use.

In London, I understand, there is effective power to tackle pavement parking and Scotland has devolved powers as well, giving local authorities there a very clear steer in the way in which they enforce.

As I understand it, the Department for Transport conducted a consultation on this issue five years or so ago and the public have been waiting a long time for a response. In January this year, the department finally said that it would give these powers to English councils at the next legislative opportunity. I have discovered in my time in the House of Lords that these opportunities do not come along very often, and I suggest that this is probably one of those legislative opportunities. I therefore urge the Minister to give this amendment a positive response and perhaps, between now and Report, we can perfect the words so that the powers can work more effectively, not just for people in Scotland and London but across England as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am sorry for sitting down prematurely.

Amendment 238, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would have no effect because there already exists a long-established and well-established civil enforcement regime in regulations made under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. That regime covers matters such as conditions for issuance and levels of penalty charge notices, rights of representation to the issuing local authority, and onward appeal to an independent adjudicator if representations are unsuccessful. The Secretary of State has also published statutory guidance, to which local authorities must have regard under Section 87 of the 2004 Act, to ensure that civil enforcement action is carried out by approved local authorities in a fair and proportionate manner.

With these assurances, I hope that noble Lords are able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief because, on this occasion, the Minister has brought great clarity to a number of the debates that were initiated in this brief discussion. The sensible thing would be for us to take away what he said and consider, ahead of Report, whether there are any matters that we still wish to pursue. Indeed, I understand that there will be negotiations on at least one of the main topics that were the subject of this discussion. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am rarely disappointed by the words of the Minister on matters relating to transport. I am delighted that he concedes that the Blunkett amendment is close to perfection; I think it is. I rather hope that, between now and Report, those of us who want to see Amendment 121A enacted will have a constructive, warm and friendly cup of tea with the Minister to resolve those few words that need to be sorted out so that, on Report, we can achieve a sublime amendment to which everybody signs up.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I have withdrawn my amendment.

Amendment 114A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 27 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I hope to be brief. I have two main topics to discuss here. No explanation has been given for including Clause 27, which has the effect of transferring to the Mayor of London powers, which currently rest with the Secretary of State, to give consent for the disposal of land owned by Transport for London.

I start by saying that I do not have a principled objection to giving more powers to Transport for London. In fact, when I think back to the pedicabs Bill, I was the one arguing against the Government’s initial proposal that the pedicab licensing regulations would have had to be approved by the Secretary of State in each case. That argument was eventually heard, so the Secretary of State has no say over the licensing of pedicabs in London; it rests entirely with Transport for London, which is the right place for it to rest. I only wish it would get on and do something about it, but that is another question.

I am not opposed in principle to transferring powers over Transport for London to the Mayor of London from the Secretary of State, but I am concerned about doing so in this case, because the land that belongs to Transport for London is very often necessary for operational purposes, although that is not always immediately apparent to the casual passer-by. The casual passer-by—that might include the mayor, who passes by occasionally—would see that land and perhaps see an opportunity for housing on it. If the mayor is responsible both for decisions relating to housing, as he is, and for decisions relating to the disposal of land by transport for London, he can be placed in a position that not only creates an inherent conflict but can create difficulties for Transport for London over time.

There is a further matter: sometimes the land owned by Transport for London is also accessible by Network Rail, and of course vice versa. We know that Transport for London runs services on a considerable amount of Network Rail assets, so the transfer of land that might be of value for operational purposes to another purpose—let us say housing, although it might be something different—could have an impact that is greater than simply one on Transport for London. It might be something to which Network Rail, for example, or Great British Railways in the future, had an objection—yet the Secretary of State, who would be the normal means through which they would articulate their objection, would not be empowered to take any steps. They would be left as simply one of a number of petitioners at the door of the Mayor of London, asking him to take their interests into account. So I am very cautious about this clause and I wonder whether it has been properly thought through. I do not understand the rationale for it, except in the general sense of, “We’ve got to devolve things, so here’s something we can devolve”. I am not sure this is something that should in fact be devolved.

My Amendment 119, and Amendment 118, which is consequential to it, would replace the duty on councils to implement local transport plans with a duty to have regard to them. This is inevitably a fine balance. I think we have all understood it and seen it in other contexts. But there is a real difference, in practice and in law, between being under a duty to implement and being under a duty to have regard. Being under a duty to implement is a very narrow, rigid requirement that will leave very little discretion for local transport authorities to take account of local circumstances. Again, I come back to what the Minister said a little while ago about local authorities being the people who know their area best. I think there is an argument at least—and this is a probing amendment—for exploring why the Government are not content with an arrangement whereby local transport authorities have a duty to have regard to the local transport plans rather than actually to implement them.

Finally, my Amendment 121 in this group relates to Schedule 10 and seeks to remove paragraph 14. As I understand paragraph 14, it effectively transfers responsibility for concessionary travel schemes from district and county councils to combined authorities, or combined county authorities once those bodies are established. There is an emotional bond in many cases between what I am going to call the bus pass and the local authority, which is of great significance both to local people and to the local authority. In fact, when I look at my own Freedom Pass, I see it says that it is funded by London Councils and HM Government. It used to say—not in my time but in years gone past—that it was funded by my local authority, which was named on the Freedom Pass.

That local link is tremendously important. It is one of the most important and valued services that local authorities supply to their residents. To remove the responsibility to the county authority and with it, no doubt, removing the name of the local authority from the pass, cutting that link, is very dangerous. It leaves in the air the question of who is paying for the Freedom Pass or bus pass that people have. Who is paying for it under these new arrangements? The reason why the local authority is entitled to have its name on it is because it is making a large financial contribution, sometimes the whole contribution. In London, the entire contribution comes from London local authorities. That is why they can have their name on it and is the basis of the bond that exists, but who is to carry that burden in the future? Who will be paying for it? Will that bond continue to be connected with the funder? These are important questions to explore. I would very much like to hear what the Minister has to say about them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 118A, 118B, 119A and 119B in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I will come to Amendment 120F in a moment.

These four amendments look at how this Bill divides responsibility between strategic authorities and local highway authorities and the risk that that division creates if it is not handled carefully. As the Bill is drafted, strategic authorities are responsible for drawing up policy through local transport plans while responsibility for implementing most road-related measures remains with local highway authorities. On the surface, that might sound tidy; in practice, it risks creating confusion and delay. This concern is informed by last week’s judgment by the Court of Appeal, the first time that a court has examined equivalent provisions in Section 151 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which governs the duty of London boroughs to implement the mayor’s transport strategy.

The distinction between policies and proposals is important here. Local transport plans, such as climate plans, contain both. A policy might be to prioritise buses or to reduce speed limits in villages. A proposal is what turns that policy into reality: five miles of bus lane delivered each year or 20 miles an hour limits introduced in five villages annually. I would make it 10 miles an hour through villages, but I understand that people have to get to places.

Under this Bill, local authorities are required to implement policies but only to have regard to proposals. We have also seen amendments that would weaken this even further, reducing the duty to have regard only to policies, not even proposals. That stands in sharp contrast to the position in London where boroughs are under a clear obligation to deliver the proposals in the mayor’s transport strategy. Yet outside London, constituent authorities will have a vote on approving local transport plans, something that London boroughs do not have. Surely, if authorities help to shape and approve the plan, it makes sense that they should also be held to deliver what it contains. If proposals can simply be noted and then ignored, we risk gridlock, not only on our streets but in how decisions get made. Strategic plans will promise change while delivery stalls on the ground.

The pace of delivery now really matters. On climate alone, the Climate Change Committee has recommended a 7% modal shift by 2035 that requires major sustained investment in buses and active travel across most, if not all, local authorities. Electric vehicle sales are off target. Other sectors are falling behind. Transport remains the largest emitting sector. It will need to do more, not less. Reducing motor traffic is also essential for public health to cut pollution, much of which now comes from brake and tyre wear. We need to improve road safety and enable walking and cycling. There is also a strong economic case. All major parties now support denser towns and cities rather than continued building on greenfield land. That will not work without significant modal shift. Without it, congestion will worsen and quality of life will decline. These amendments would ensure coherence between strategy and delivery, reduce the risk of stalemate and give local transport plans the force needed to turn ambition into action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. I also work on the Local Government Association, where I have a broader purview. In some of the discussions we have heard today, I have been sitting here thinking, “We do that in London, and we need to make sure that other places do it too”. I find that, where local authorities are keen on Vision Zero and moving towards more sustainable active travel, they are going ahead and doing it. It is with local authorities that are not so keen that a bit of politics probably comes into it. You want everyone to be on the same page and acting the same way. I am not going to mention any local authorities that are not on the same page as Lewisham or, frankly, as progressive when it comes to our green agenda, sustainable travel and so on, but last Monday I had to reprimand someone from a local authority and say, “You’ve got to give people information and guidance so that they can decide. You can’t decide for them whether they want to be included in declaring a climate emergency”. In fact, we have moved past the climate emergency; we are on to a climate action plan now, so I had to inform them of that.

Sometimes there are those differences but, as I say, we work closely with the LGA. The noble Lord mentioned an example where we had a Tory Secretary of State and a Labour Mayor of London. There can be sticking points where we want to get ahead and do something. That is why I speak to my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendment, because we need things to be speedier and we have more capacity in local government and know our areas. We need this to be more streamlined so that we can make those decisions more quickly, such as for a transport and works order, and have connections to be able to speak.

For example, with the Bakerloo line extension going out into Kent, we have those relationships and connections. They are not in the Mayor of London’s realm but outside. More locally, in Grove Park, in the south of my borough, we have a desire and an ambition to have an inner-city national park. There is a patchwork of land owned by Network Rail; we are getting it and other parties around the table so that we can drive it and work together. We have an ambition to have this park, where Edith Nesbit lived and wrote The Railway Children. No matter what part of government we are in, money and financing always seem to get in the way. But, where there is a meeting of minds and a desire to achieve our goals, we can try, incrementally and bit by bit, to work towards that.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness on succeeding me as chairman of the London Councils transport and environment committee. Does she agree that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in relation to refusing the Mayor of London additional rail routes in London, is that that is the policy of the current Government, who as I understand it intend to maintain the devolved routes as they are at the moment but have a policy of creating no more? One does not need to look to a political explanation of these decisions at all. I assume that, because they are in the same party, there is only sweetness and light between the Minister and the Mayor of London.

Does the noble Baroness also agree that it surely cannot all be sweetness and light in London at the moment, because London Councils has a policy that the boroughs should replace the assembly and have a relationship with the mayor much on the national level being proposed in this Bill, whereby the mayor is chairman of a combined authority? It seems to me that they feel that they are not sufficiently in the room, if they would like to be a great deal more so through a mechanism such as that.

These points are very good. While I am on my feet, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that my experience of London Councils and of holding the position that the noble Baroness now does is that politics in the sense of pure party politics does not get very much in the way when boroughs are collaborating with each other, the mayor, Transport for London and so on. However, there are structural differences. The truth is that the interests of the boroughs and those of Transport for London, for example, are not always the same. That form of institutional politics is very apparent. Finally, I would say—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord was making an intervention. Interventions have to be short, and his is not.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

By the time I have finished, it will be short. I was asking the noble Baroness whether she agreed that none of these considerations is particularly relevant because the problem that I drew attention to in my amendment, with which she does not agree, is not because of a disagreement between the boroughs and the mayor, which could be sorted out by sitting in a room; it is about an inherently internal conflict of interest between the mayor as the person responsible for housing policy and the mayor as chairman of Transport for London now being given the power to dispose of property in place of the Secretary of State.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Can I just say to the noble Lord that interventions are supposed to be short and I think he is taking advantage of the Committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

With respect, this is Committee and one is allowed to go on a little bit. Although it is in the form of an intervention, I could just as easily have stood up and made a second speech. I think the noble Lord should stop intervening on me quite so much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin with the proposition tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on Clause 27. I will also say what a pleasure it is to hear my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham on this and other issues. Just deviating from the amendments for one moment, I will say that the noble Lord is incorrect about the devolution of rail, because the Secretary of State is currently considering the devolution of northern inner suburban trains to the Mayor of London from the national railway network.

Transport in London is devolved, with the mayor responsible for managing the capital’s transport network, so it is right that, in line with the wider purpose of the Bill, the mayor should be empowered to consent to operational land-disposal applications from TfL. The noble Lord referred to operational land and therefore it is necessary to consult Network Rail, and that is enshrined in the proposition. This will therefore simplify the existing process and better enable the Mayor of London to unlock land for much-needed housing, supporting growth in the capital. The Secretary of State does not need to get in the way of housing developments on land owned by Transport for London and suitable for housing.

On Amendments 118 and 119, on local transport plans, constituent councils of strategic authorities with responsibility for managing local highways have a crucial role in supporting the delivery of the strategic authority’s local transport plan. Clause 29 is intended to support close working between constituent councils and the strategic authority by requiring the constituent council implementing the policies in the local transport plan to have regard to the proposals in the plan. This duty already applies to some constituent councils and this clause will extend that duty to all constituent councils.

The clause aims to strike the right balance between supporting close working between authorities while not giving the strategic authority undue control over how constituent councils manage their local highway network. These amendments would undermine this balance by weakening the duty placed on constituent councils to implement policies and instead substitute “have regard to” them. As members of the strategic authority, constituent councils have a key role in the development of the authority’s local transport plan. As set out in other parts of the Bill, this includes a vote on whether to approve the local transport plan.

I turn to Amendments 118A, 118B, 119A and 119B. Constituent councils of strategic authorities with responsibility for managing local highways have a crucial role in supporting the delivery of the strategic authority’s local transport plan. As I said earlier, Clause 29 is intended to support close working between the constituent councils and the strategic authority, by requiring the implementation of policies in the local transport plan and having regard to the proposals. As I said, the clause aims to strike the right balance between supporting close working and not giving the strategic authority undue control over the way that constituent councils manage their local highway network.

These amendments would undermine this balance by requiring constituent councils to “implement” rather than “have regard to”, and would therefore give strategic authorities indirect powers over how constituent councils manage local roads. However, we recognise that there are benefits to strategic authority mayors having levers to implement agreed plans. Clause 28 and Schedule 9 therefore give mayors a power to direct constituent councils in the exercise of their functions on the key route network of the most important local roads, helping mayors to implement their local plans.

On Amendment 120A, I know that workplace parking levies can be effective in delivering local transport priorities, as demonstrated—as my noble friend Lord Bassam observed—by the successful scheme in Nottingham, the only such scheme currently in operation in England. It has both reduced congestion in the city and provided funds to support the operation of the light rail system. We therefore hear the arguments for a greater role for strategic authorities, and for mayors to make decisions such as these in their area, but we need to take time to consider the issue fully before making changes to the framework. We need to be certain that any changes are the right ones. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue, but I urge him to withdraw his amendment, while reassuring him that my department is giving this matter careful consideration.

I turn to Amendments 120B and 120C. Transport and Works Act orders can be used as a single process to obtain the majority of powers to construct and/or operate a range of both transport and waterway schemes. As observed, the Secretary of State is the decision-maker for schemes applied for under the Act across England, operating within a well-established and legally robust framework. The procedure is set out in legislation and would need to be followed regardless of who the decision-maker is. Powers granted through these orders are wide ranging and can apply or disapply legislation. They have significant legal and practical implications. Creating multiple new decision-making bodies would risk introducing inconsistency in the interpretation of policy and the use of powers, creating uncertainty, causing delays and potentially increasing the risk of challenge to the schemes.

However, the new Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 recently introduced changes to this regime to improve the efficiency and predictability of delivering new schemes via this route and, in particular, to address the need for taking decisions quickly where necessary. Secondary legislation will drive further efficiencies. Very careful consideration would be necessary if such powers were to be devolved so that the benefits of the recent improvements that I have just referred to are not undermined and the necessary protections are in place for all parties.

I turn to Amendment 120D on Vision Zero. Noble Lords will remember that bus safety was discussed at length during the passage of the Bus Services Bill. The contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, helped highlight this important issue and ensured that bus safety is included in the recently published Road Safety Strategy. Published on 7 January, it is the first such strategy for 15 years. It sets out the Government’s vision for a safer future on our roads for all road users, not only buses. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that the whole strategy is based on the internationally recognised safe system approach, a core component of Vision Zero. The safe system principle accepts that human error will happen but ensures that all road users, roads, vehicles, speeds and post-crash care work together to prevent fatalities. It is a shared responsibility. It is right that local areas, including Greater Manchester, Oxford and London, which has also been mentioned, are adopting Vision Zero. The Government welcome other local areas doing so in respect of buses, but it must be right for them.

On Amendment 120E, buses already provide one of the safest modes of road transport in Britain and we remain committed to increasing that safety further. During the passage of the Bus Services Bill, we discussed adherence to the highest standards of safety, monitored by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and regulated by traffic commissioners. This subject was exhaustively discussed then. There is already collection of data by the department, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police, carried down to local authority level through the STATS19 framework. Data is also collected from PSV operators who must report incidents to the DVSA thanks to their operator licensing requirements. These datasets already provide a comprehensive picture of bus safety and, as observed during the passage of the Bus Services Bill, to require more frequent or richer data would increase the burden on drivers, strategic authorities and the police. I thank the noble Baroness for speaking to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on this issue and I hope he will be reassured that we remain committed, as we were during the passage of the Bus Services Bill, to increasing bus safety and are taking real action to do so.

On Amendment 120F, tabled by the noble Baroness, the Government committed in the English devolution White Paper to ensuring that, for non-mayoral strategic authorities, key strategic decisions will have the support of all constituent councils. Adopting a local transport plan is one of those decisions, and the Bill therefore requires the consent of all constituent councils. Existing non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities already have provisions in their constitutions that require local transport plans to be agreed by all constituent councils. We know that those provisions provide reassurance to prospective constituent councils. There is already a duty on local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans under review and alter them if they consider it appropriate to do so, and the Government are committed to providing updated guidance to local transport authorities on local transport plans, which will provide advice to authorities about when they should review and update their local plans.

On Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at the moment concessionary travel is managed by travel concession authorities, which are also the local transport authority for their area. This means that one authority does local transport planning, secures the provision of public transport services and manages concessions. Reverting to the approach taken before 2011, as the amendment would do, would make travelling locally more difficult due to a range of concessionary travel frameworks as one moves from one area to another. Since that point, combined authorities and combined county authorities have all become both the local transport authority and the travel concession authority for their area, following a period of transition. This has proven effective, with local transport managed at the strategic level across the broader geography. With travel concessions managed alongside local transport functions, there are also streamlined benefits that would not be possible were these two separated at two different levels of local government.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his Amendment 236. The vast majority of applications to install cattle grids are decided by local highway authorities. Only when there are unresolved objections, or objections following the consultation stage, does the Secretary of State get involved, or where the Secretary of State, via National Highways, is the highway authority. There were no appeals in the years from 2016 to 2025 and only one in 2025, so it is scarcely a huge burden on either national government or the Department for Transport. There were two in 2014 and one in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, so I submit that this is not a huge problem for government and it would resolve only the unresolved issues arising from the primary consideration by local government. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am mildly astonished that the Minister has not addressed the perfectly serious question I raised about the potential for internal conflict between the Mayor of London, acting with regard to his housing responsibilities, and his responsibility as chairman of Transport for London. No doubt we will have an opportunity to come back to that later. However, for the rest of it, the Minister has set out the Government’s position relatively clearly. We will have an opportunity to reflect on it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw my proposition.

Clause 27 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

115: Schedule 9, page 157, leave out lines 22 to 25
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why the mayoral CCA is required to have at least one road designated as a key route network road.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Schedule 9 of the Bill amends the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Its effect is to require mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities to prepare, publish and maintain a designation of a key route network within their area. I am not raising profound objections in principle to this, but I have some detailed questions.

Amendment 105 relates to the first paragraph of the schedule. Why must there be at least one road designated, even if nobody wants it? That appears to be the effect of 1(2)(1A)(c) of Schedule 9, Part 1, which states that

“if there is no highway or proposed highway in the CCA’s area that is designated as a key route network road, the mayor must prepare a proposed designation in relation to at least one highway or proposed highway”.

I hope that the Minister can explain why that should be, as it is not at all apparent.

Amendments 115A and 115B work together, seeking to define more closely what the key route network should consist of. At present, the term lacks a firm statutory definition. I assume that, when we discuss a key route network outside Greater London, the Minister has in mind, to some extent, the Transport for London road network in Greater London. That in itself was effectively taken over wholesale from the red route network that was established in the 1990s before the creation of the Greater London Authority and TfL. There has been amazingly little adjustment to that network since it was established. It has been the same roads, more or less, ever since.

There is no limit in this Bill on what roads could be designated. When the red routes were established in London, it was clearly the Government’s intention and practice that they should be the main roads. In this case, the key route network could be any road that the mayor and combined authority choose to designate—even side streets. These amendments, Amendments 115A and 115B, are probing because they are limiting the network to classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic. That seems to be sensible.

There is a related and minor issue, a subset of that. The Transport for London road network carries round the corner into side streets to an extent. That is what it was allowed to do when the red routes were established. It was possible to negotiate with the traffic director for London whether they should take the full amount of their entitlement in those side roads—I think it is 30 metres—or not.

These are important matters of local interest, because you might find that side streets with local parking and other local amenities that residents were used to become the equivalent of red routes, and you have very little say about it as a local authority. That is not good enough. We need this clarified in advance. There two levels of that: why not limit it to the main roads, and what are the Government going to do about the side road issue if they have that in mind, going round the corner?

Amendment 117 is intended entirely to be helpful to the Government. It seems that there is a clash here with the Road Traffic Reduction Act, in which principal local authorities are required to provide the information and do the forecasting and monitoring that the new combined authorities will do in respect of the key route network. The principal authorities are required to do it for roads in their area and, unless they are relieved of that obligation, they will do it for the key route networks as well. So, there will be two levels of authority carrying out the same monitoring, forecasting and reporting functions. That cannot be entirely what the Government intend, but, if it is, it is as well that we should know about it. I beg to move my amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will speak to Amendments 116 and 117A to 117G in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Amendment 116 probes the Government’s intentions around these powers, particularly in relation to key route networks and traffic regulation orders. As drafted, the Bill would allow mayors to be given a power to direct the exercise of certain road-related powers, including in relation to roads that are not part of the key route network and that therefore remain under the control of local or constituent authorities. The Secretary of State would then be able to issue guidance about how those powers are to be exercised. That raises some obvious questions. In what circumstances do the Government envisage these direction powers being used? What safeguards will exist to prevent them cutting across local decisions that have been made for reasons of safety, public health or community well-being?

Traffic regulation orders are often the mechanism by which councils introduce bus lanes, safer speed limits, low-traffic neighbourhoods or restrictions to protect residents. They are subject to consultation, legal tests and democratic accountability. There is understandable concern that new strategic powers could be used deliberately or inadvertently to undermine these local decisions. This amendment is about clarity and reassurance. Will the Minister confirm that the traffic management 2004 guidance will be revised to include guidance on key route networks? Will the Minister also ensure that such guidance prevents misuse by mayors, such as using KRN powers to undo traffic regulation orders made by local councils?

Amendments 117A to 117G seek to move the duty to report on traffic levels from the local and constituent authority level to the strategic level, on the basis that the latter has the greater responsibility and power to reduce traffic. As the Bill is currently drafted, the traffic reporting duty is tied to the use of key route network roads. This amendment would remove that limitation, so that the duty applies to all local roads within the area of the local transport authority. In doing so, it aligns the reporting duty with the full scope of the local transport plan.

The underlying issue here is one of responsibility. These amendments reflect the simple reality that strategic authorities, not individual constituent authorities, hold the main levers for reducing traffic across an area. Strategic authorities set and monitor the local transport plan. They determine the overall policy for all modes of travel. Through spatial development strategies, they decide where major development goes—decisions that fundamentally shape whether traffic is generated or avoided in the first place. They also promote and deliver the big-ticket transport schemes—trams, busways and other major public transport investments—and, increasingly, they will hold powers over enforcement and demand-management measures such as congestion charging. These are the tools that shift traffic levels at scale.

By contrast, local authorities have far fewer powers. Even where they do have powers, such as in implementing bus lanes or safer speed limits, those decisions are meant to flow from the strategic authority’s policies as set out in the local transport plan. Given that reality, it makes little sense to place on constituent authorities a fragmented traffic reporting duty that is limited to certain categories of road while the strategic authority is responsible for the policies and decisions that affect traffic across the whole network.

Of course, there is a real risk of unintended consequences. The proposed split would create a perverse incentive for constituent authorities to resist roads being designated as part of the key route network. Why agree to that designation if it means that a strategic authority acquires a traffic reduction duty for those roads but not for others? The danger is that this could lead to traffic being pushed off major routes and on to less suitable residential streets, which is exactly the opposite of what most communities want.

I am concerned that there is a coherent approach. Surely that means placing the responsibility for traffic reporting at the strategic authority level, covering all local roads in line with the scope of the local transport plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for again making his position clear. I suspect we will be coming back to some of these issues on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 115 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

120: After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause—
“Rail devolution: passenger rail servicesA mayoral combined authority has the power to provide, or secure the provision of, passenger rail services within, or within the surroundings of, its area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives mayoral combined authorities the power to provide or secure the provision of passenger rail services within or within the surroundings of its area.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief. I have only one amendment in this group. There is also an amendment by my noble friend, Lord Lansley, which, as I understand it, has a similar effect to my own, or at least points in the same direction.

The reason I raise this—I refer to my local government experience—is that anyone with local government experience is seized of the question of vires. We are always worried about whether we actually have the power to do that which we want to do, because, as is well known, if you do not have the power in law, you are probably acting outside your responsibilities and can be held liable for it, and all sorts of terrible things can ensue from that.

Here I am thinking ahead to the Railways Bill, which we intend to amend when it comes to your Lordships’ House so as to give certain rail responsibilities to mayors in certain cities at least. At the moment, that Railways Bill merely gives them the opportunity to be consulted and to request, and we think devolution could go a little further. Thinking ahead to that, one wonders whether the response to that from the Government might not be, “Ah, yes, but even if we were willing to give them such powers, they don’t have the vires to do it. They do not have the legal power to operate a passenger railway service, and it would be inappropriate to bring that into the Railways Bill, where it would be out of scope”. But of course it would not be out of scope of this Bill, which is about exactly that question: the devolution of powers to local authorities. So I thought we would fend off that difficulty if it arose later by making it explicit in the Bill that those local authorities had legal power to run passenger railway services.

Of course, it would not follow at all from this measure alone that they would be able to run passenger railway services. If you want to run a passenger railway service, you have to have a railway and some trains. This Bill would not change that situation at all, but it would give them the legal power should it be made possible for them to have access to trains and to rail in the future. For that reason, I think it is a very sensible measure to include here and I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the opportunity to contribute on this. I fear that those of us who participated during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, such as the Minister and my noble friend Lord Moylan, will be having our Groundhog Day moment on this group because we will be examining, as my noble friend said, the question of whether it should be possible for passenger rail services to be operated by mayors.

My amendment is different from my noble friend’s because I am setting out to examine whether the legislation needs to change to enable that to happen. There has been something of a pre-emption of this debate by the exchanges that took place on the group before last in relation to exactly this question of whether TfL and the mayor should be able to take responsibility for the Great Northern inner suburban services. It raises exactly the point that is the burden of my amendment. So I want to start by asking the Minister: is it possible, as he suggested on the earlier group, for passenger transport executives, accountable to mayors, to run passenger rail services? The Minister is nodding. I shall just explain why I think it is possible and then examine whether that is the case. Maybe we do not need to amend either this Bill or the Railways Bill in due course, but we might need to look at those issues when they come up.

It seems to me that, in the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, it is provided that the Secretary of State, as the franchising authority, when he or she—it is a she—wishes to procure passenger rail services, must do so only by a direct award of a public service contract to a publicly owned company. A publicly owned company, as we then proceed to discover under Section 30C of the Railways Act, as amended by the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, is a company owned by the Secretary of State. We know what this now means: it means that Great British Railways will effectively be the franchising authority in the fullness of time—I think we are looking two years ahead or so—of all the passenger railway services other than those outside the present franchising agreement, such as open access operators.

How then could Great Northern inner suburban services be handed to the mayor in any practical sense? The answer is that, under Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005, passenger transport executives may enter into agreements. Section 13(4) says:

“A Passenger Transport Executive … in England may enter into agreements for … the provision, by a person who is a … franchise operator … of … services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area”.


So TfL could enter into an agreement with Great British Railways to provide passenger railway services extending beyond London. “How far?” noble Lords may ask. Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 gives us the answer: “within the permitted distance”, which is 25 miles from the boundary of TfL’s area. That takes us out to Stevenage—yes, Stevenage, no less.

I am looking to the Minister to say whether any of this train of thought is not correct. Is it possible for mayors to be given not the franchising authority for the delivery of passenger services in their area but an agreement for the operation of passenger services, to the extent that that is negotiated with Great British Railways and approved by the Secretary of State under Section 13(5)? That operational control, of course, is subject to what we will discuss, no doubt, in due course: the directing mind of Great British Railways. The nature of the operational activities undertaken by TfL must therefore be entirely constrained by the agreement that Great British Railways and Transport for London will enter into. But it seems to me that it is possible to do it now. If it is not possible to do it now, the Bill should be amended so as to enable this to happen, which is what my amendment was originally intended to do.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I want to be absolutely clear in my own mind and check that my noble friend is as well. It is very easy, in London, to think that Transport for London runs those services, partly because they are branded to look like Transport for London, and that therefore, Transport for London is in roughly the equivalent position of a train operating company, but that is not its position. With those services, the Secretary of State’s role as franchising authority has been transferred to Transport for London—Transport for London is not the train operating company, but the franchising authority. All the services are run by train operating companies, which are invited to bid for them. I am not sure that that system applies in other conurbations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Under the arrangement that is struck, is it not likely that the only potential operating company that would be acceptable for such an agreement would be Great British Railways? Great British Railways would be agreeing with a mayor, “You can pay us to run services”, which is more or less exactly what the Bill envisages and which many of us find objectionable. What my noble friend is describing may be accurate and permissible—we will find out from the Minister in a moment whether it is—but it does not take us beyond the Railways Bill, which many of us would like to do. That is the purpose of my amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My noble friend makes a good point. If the Secretary of State were to ask Great British Railways to enter into that agreement with Transport for London, I do not know who would be the operator of the passenger rail services concerned. It might be Great British Railways, because Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 clearly envisages payment for this. That could be to GBR, in exactly in the same way as it has been in the past to Great Northern or any other operator.

The point is that the agreement under the 2005 legislation enables passenger transport executives to enter into agreements with the franchise operators to run those services. As far as I can see, that is not being taken away, as long as the legal authority is not transferred to the mayor. What my noble friend Lord Moylan is correctly saying about the current legal status of TfL is not what can be reproduced in relation to Great Northern in suburban services, as far as I am aware.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, on Amendments 120 and 120EA, via provisions in the Transport Act 1968, mayoral combined authorities with passenger transport executive functions already have the appropriate powers as envisaged by Amendment 120. These are the combined authorities of West Yorkshire, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, North East England and South Yorkshire. They either have passenger transport executives acting on their behalf in relation to rail functions or have had the powers of passenger transport executives transferred to them.

Other mayoral combined authorities do not have these powers. Instead, via the Transport Act 1985, they can secure and subsidise services where the public transport requirements in their area would not otherwise be met. The Government have the powers to confer new functions on strategic authorities, individually or as a class. This includes the powers in Schedule 25 to this Bill, which enable the Secretary of State to confer new functions on strategic authorities on a permanent or pilot basis. Therefore, should an authority require these powers, there are mechanisms in place to achieve it.

Amendment 120EA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would not be an appropriate mechanism to enable further devolution to establish mayoral strategic authorities. The heart of the matter is that, for example, where services have been devolved, such as Merseyrail in the Liverpool City Region, this has been achieved by the exemption of services from designation by the Secretary of State under Section 24 of the 1993 Act. After the Great British Railways Act is passed, the Secretary of State will not be the franchising authority, so Section 13 of the 2005 Act will not be the appropriate mechanism. I hope that this answers the noble Lord.

It is anticipated that Great British Railways and mayoral strategic authorities will deliver a new place-based partnership model to deliver on local priorities. This will bring the railway closer to communities, enable collaboration and shared objectives and improve multimodal integration and opportunities for local investment. The depth of partnership will vary depending on local priorities, on capability and also, very significantly, on the geography of the railway, which seldom accords with local government boundaries.

The Government are open to considering further devolution of rail responsibilities should an authority make the case for it. I referred earlier to the Mayor of London’s proposal to take over the Great Northern inner suburban services. If operations are devolved, mayoral authorities will have a choice on how the operations are performed—either through Great British Railways or another operator. The Department for Transport recently published guidance on this topic. In making a decision in response to a request for devolution, key considerations will include the financial and commercial implications, the capability and the geography. The impacts on neighbouring services and communities beyond the combined authority boundary will also need to be factored in. I hope that this is clear and enables the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating discussion—at least, a very small number of us found it fascinating, others perhaps less so. This is an important topic, as everyone on all sides has acknowledged. Having listened to the Minister, I am sure that we will want to come back to it at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 120 withdrawn.

Nationalised Passenger Rail Services

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what performance improvements have been delivered by nationalised passenger rail services since 28 November 2024.

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

My Lords, public ownership is a vital step towards reforming our railways and rebuilding trust and pride. On average, publicly owned train operators perform better on punctuality and cancellations than those yet to come under public ownership. They are already delivering improvements, with lower cancellations on the TransPennine Express and Northern, and South Western quadrupling the number of new trains entering service. I expect all operators, both public and private, to deliver good performance for passengers.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, when the figures were published a month ago, cancellations were reported to have risen by around 50% on South Western services in the months following nationalisation in May last year, alongside a marked increase in delay minutes and late arrivals. Clause 18 of the Railways Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote high standards of railway service performance. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to incentivise and enforce those standards in practice, given that the proposed passenger standards authority appears to have no direct enforcement powers and the Office of Rail and Road’s remit in this area is being restricted?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The discussion on the forthcoming Railways Bill will happen in this House in due course. Meanwhile, the Government are pursuing reliability very strongly. If a train company is left, by a combination of the previous Government and the previous operator, desperately short of drivers, with 83 of 90 new trains parked in sidings for nearly five years, it takes a bit of time to recover from that position. That position is being recovered from, in respect of South Western. More than 30 of the new trains are now in service, and two-thirds of the drivers have now been trained to drive them. That takes time. It should have been done before, but it is now being done by this Government.

Number Plates Intended to Defeat Enforcement Cameras

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I refer the noble Lord to Hansard for yesterday, when we discussed precisely that issue at Questions.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, as noble Lords have made clear and illustrated, we are living in an increasingly lawless environment on the highway: everything from bicycles at red lights to uninsured vehicles—a number of things have been mentioned. The Department for Transport seems to regard its role as quite separate from that of the enforcement authorities. When the department is devising new regulations or changing existing ones, what engagement does it have with the police but also with local highways authorities, who are there to enforce those regulations, as to how realistic it is and what resources they have to be able to deliver the enforcement?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I refer the Lord to page 40 of the recently published Road Safety Strategy, where there is a lot of text headed by:

“Continuing to work closely with the police and other enforcement agencies to ensure the outcomes of the Roads Policing Review are fully considered”,


and underneath it is text that indicates very clearly that the department is working very closely with the police, other enforcement agencies and highway agencies to get the law enforced on our roads.

Motorway Speed Cameras

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

If that was a question, all I can say is that the noble Lord has given his own answer.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the highways agency and the police forces have acted responsibly in this case by paying compensation, but in London responsibility for enforcing moving traffic offences is almost entirely devolved to the boroughs. I believe those powers have been enacted and made available in the rest of the country as well. In cases where cameras are used for the enforcement of moving traffic offences—I appreciate that they do not have very many variable speed limits—what audit are the Government undertaking of the systems being used to ensure that they do not have bugs and problems as well?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is important to note that this is an issue because of the interaction of two systems. The technology used for camera enforcement is obviously checked and there is an audit process—I cannot describe it to the noble Lord in detail. The matter we are discussing about enforcement of variable speed limits has come about because of the interaction of two systems, and the noble Lord is describing circumstances about cameras used only either for speed enforcement or, more often, yellow boxes and suchlike.

Great Western Railway: Infrastructure

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I could do without anybody storing water in the aquifer next to the Chipping Sodbury tunnel and cutting. If they try it, there will be some serious legal action. The water companies have their part to play in managing surface water, just as landowners do and just as Network Rail does. It is an increasing problem, it needs to be treated seriously and a lot of public money is going into dealing with it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate the difficulties for the Minister. However, changing the subject slightly, if there is so little money available for rail infrastructure and so many demands on it, why are the Government persisting with this plan that Great British Railways should build its own retail website and app for selling tickets when that is done perfectly well by the private sector already? Is it not time to abandon this vanity project?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Nobody said that there was too little money. A lot of money is being spent on railway infrastructure. The problem has been that the climate has changed faster than adaptation of the railway infrastructure. The noble Lord is quite wrong about ticket retailing. There are currently 14 websites from train operating companies. They are very confusing. Many people do not think that you can buy a ticket for First Great Western from South Western, but you can. The objective of GBR is to replace this system with one that people can trust and will use to increase rail travel.

Northern Powerhouse Rail

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Too many northerners still face the choice of staying at home and putting aspiration on hold or moving away in search of a better future. I say no more unfair choices and no more missed opportunities. Today we start delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Northern Powerhouse Rail has been with us now for over a decade. During that time its meaning and shape have changed somewhat, backwards and forwards, but nothing very much has been delivered. The Secretary of State in her Statement on Wednesday started with a lengthy castigation of the preceding Government for not having delivered anything despite having originated the concept when George Osborne was Chancellor. One must admit that she has some justification for doing so because the record of the previous Government in delivering major rail projects was not glorious and not something that I stand here with a view to defending.

The other thing that I want to say by way of preliminaries is that this is an ambitious programme and if the Government were to deliver it, the Conservative Party would applaud them—because the people of northern England deserve better rail transport links and this programme would transform what they currently have into something more effective and probably something that would bring greater economic benefits to the area. But that does leave us with quite a number of questions about the Statement made by the Secretary of State, which perhaps the Minister can answer.

When the Labour Party was in opposition, it thought of and presented Northern Powerhouse Rail as an almost wholly new line stretching from Liverpool across to Leeds, but what we have here is not a new line but a series of improvements. The Liverpool to Manchester part of it is to be a new line, but most of it is a series of improvements. Have the Labour Government now abandoned definitively the notion of a new line across the Pennines, which previously they supported?

When in opposition, the Labour Party stated repeatedly that trans-Pennine improvements would not be effective except in combination with the full delivery of HS2—certainly to Manchester and ideally to Leeds. Can the Government say definitively that this view has now been abandoned, that there is no plan for HS2 to be extended and that these improvements that are proposed are the stand-alone project on which they are depending for a transformation of the economy of that area?

My three remaining questions concern money. The Statement announces expenditure of £1.1 billion over the next four years. As I understand it—although I would be grateful for clarification from the Minister—that £1.1 billion is to be spent on preparatory work. By preparatory work I mean studies, scoping and design. I do not mean preparatory work of a physical character. As far as I can make out, none of that money over the next four years is to go on physical works. Am I correct that all the other works that are promised here are to be delivered after 2030 and some even later than that? I am not criticising the need for phasing but asking about the date. Is the £1.1 billion actually going to give us any improvement or will it be simply on preparatory works? Is there nothing to be seen before 2030?

Next, there is a funding envelope promised of £45 billion in total. Now, I ask this question in all sincerity. It happens all the time. Politicians and Governments do it. They say, “This is what something is going to cost”, but they cannot tell you what the something is. Until you have done the £1.1 billion of preparatory works—scoping and design—how can you possibly know what it is going to cost?

We made the same mistake over HS2. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made the same mistake over HS2 when he initiated it. We had a cost before we had even a line of route. What is the basis for the £45 billion if the preparatory, scoping and design work has not yet been done?

Finally, will the Minister confirm that the £45 billion is to be spent after 2030; that is, wholly by their successor Government? Do the Government not feel the slightest shame in claiming credit for that when they are landing it on another party?

Buses: Safety and Security

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The Bus Services Act 2025 mandates training for all bus drivers, to make buses part of the safer streets initiative to deal with violence against women and girls. The department is actively producing guidance for bus operators and local authorities about how that is done so that every bus driver in Britain has the ability to spot what is going on and deal with it. Some 96% of buses in Britain now have CCTV, which is a means of providing both evidence and reassurance to passengers that their safety is being considered. I am looking forward, as I am sure my noble friend is, to this training being rolled out to every driver in Britain.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it remains the case that very large numbers of people are injured daily though accidents inside buses, especially elderly people, in large measure as a result of sharp braking. Nothing has been done to reduce this number over the years. The Minister is very aware of it. What can he say that this new strategy that we have the benefit of today is going to do to make a real difference to that number?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I would take issue with the noble Lord in saying that nothing has been done. There has been a lot of individual work. In particular, Transport for London, post his and my time there, has spent a lot of effort and activity in interior bus design and specification of vehicles themselves. But he, too, when he sees the Road Safety Strategy will see words in there about better driving and infrastructure, which was previously referred to, and about the use of Vision Zero, all of which must make a difference in how people drive and, consequently, the effects of braking. Of course, you want vehicles to stop when the vehicle in front of them stops, or there is some hazard, but sharp braking is, of course, as he says, particularly damaging to older people and vulnerable people. We want to avoid it, which is why the Road Safety Strategy has to affect all users of roads.

Channel Tunnel Infrastructure: Reliability

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that we used to have far more influence over Eurostar and its commercial policies because we were once part-owners of it, but, sadly, a previous Conservative Government sold their 40% share in Eurostar to what has turned out to be the French state railway 10 years ago. So, we have no commercial influence over what Eurostar does.

If there is a case for what the noble Lord suggests, it would certainly require some examination, but I am not sure that we particularly want to interfere in people’s commercial businesses. What I do want to do is make sure that the infrastructure provided by Getlink, HS1 and SNCF on the other side of the tunnel is reliable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, so that the services that currently run and additional future services run reliably.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, to hold a private railway company to account. Can the Minister tell us how we will hold Great British Railways to account when it is in operation, given that it is only obliged to “have regard” to guidance from the Secretary of State rather than to comply with it, according to the Railways Bill currently being considered in another place?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

We are quite a long way from the New Year’s Eve disruption in the Channel Tunnel, but never mind.

The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the principal means by which the Government hold arm’s-length bodies to account is by control of the appointment of the chair and the board. That is a pretty reasonable level of control. If he reads the Bill that is currently in the other place, he will see that there is a variety of mechanisms for the Secretary of State to make sure, on behalf of customers and passengers, that Great British Railways does what the Government want. I do not think there is any defect in those arrangements, but no doubt we will discuss them further when the Bill comes before this House.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not detain the House, because, as we all know, there is important business ahead. However, I congratulate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her work on the Bill and for having brought it to the stage where it is poised on the brink of the statute book. As someone who, in the past, has piloted a Private Member’s Bill through to its final stages, I know very well that the Private Members’ Bill procedure can indeed change the law of this country.

The Bill literally changes one word, from “may” to “must”. As a member of your Lordships’ UK Engagement with Space Committee—I am not here to talk about our report, Act Now or Lose Out, interesting though it was—I believe that the Bill will unlock investment and a space economy for the future. The UK could be well placed to play an active part in that. I thank all those involved and wish this Bill very well in the future.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this is the second Bill this week that, in effect, transfers risk or cost away from private investors to the taxpayer or the fare payer, to help put Britain on the path to industrial success in the future. I say to the Minister, who supports the Bill, that this is a long way from the days of the railways, when private money without government support and without any transfer of risk—and sometimes with private investors losing their funds—built our great railway network. However, it turns out that this is necessary for our success in space and so we support the Bill and congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns on bringing it forward and to a successful conclusion. Like her, I thank not only the Minister for his friendly and open engagement but his civil servants, who have been supportive in this process.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to and support for the Bill. I offer particular thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for steering the Bill through this House and to John Grady for bringing forward this short but important Bill in the other place.

The Government recognise that the question of liability and insurance is of utmost concern to the space sector, given the value that the industry places on having legislative certainty on this matter and the concerns that it has raised about the use of the word “may” in Section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act. I am therefore grateful to the noble Baroness for the Bill, which, by amending Section 12(2), will meet a key request from the sector.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is trying to tease out the details around revenue certainty mechanism contracts.

Amendment 2 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, says that the contracts must not exceed 10 years and must have a no-cost break clause at five years. Amendment 3 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on the other hand, wants the contracts to be increased from 10 to 20 years—we have already heard the reasons around that. So there is a difference in thinking from the two Members. However, what is key here and clear from the debate so far is that flexibility is needed, depending on the type of industry involved here. The Minister briefed Members about the thinking behind the 10-year contracts at a recent meeting, so I hope he can explain from the Dispatch Box to reassure Members that the Government have in mind the right length of contracts for this emerging area.

Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, as he outlined, is trying to put flesh on the bones of the revenue certainty contracts by developing an allocation framework similar to contracts for difference for energy. Although Amendment 6 looks at the role and amount of revenue certainty contracts for power to liquid fuels, both of these are really important points which I hope the Minister can address, as well as whether this is the right stage for such detail or whether some of that should be coming through at secondary legislation stage.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this short debate. It is almost certainly my fault, and I will probably need to be mildly humiliated as I am corrected on the topic, but we have discussed the length of contracts by reference to Clause 1(7) and it seems to me that it says nothing at all about the length of contracts. The Minister now has the opportunity to correct one or both sides of this question.

Clause 1(7) states:

“No direction may be given under subsection (1) after the end of the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.


Following on from that immediately, subsection (8) gives the power to the Secretary of State by regulation to amend subsection (7) so as to extend the period for a further five years. This is saying when the counterparty can enter into contracts, not when the contracts start. It is not saying when the contracts end. As long as the contract is awarded in the first 10 or 15 years, it could be for 100 years. Nothing that has been tabled by noble Lords in relation to this clause would affect that.

However, in my Amendment 2, I have bitten firmly on the question and said that no contract, whenever it is awarded, may last for more than 10 years and that it must contain a break clause after five years. I am talking in my amendment about the length of the contract, but the other noble Lords who have talked about longer contracts are not talking about longer contracts at all. I may have got that completely wrong—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way for two reasons. First, despite having asked the clerk for advice, I omitted to declare an interest at the beginning of my speech, which I will now correct. I draw the attention of the Committee to my entry in the register as the non-executive chair of RVL Aviation, as I did at Second Reading. Secondly, on my noble friend’s specific question, I referred in my speech to his amendment. I had the misfortune of supporting his amendment before he had so ably spoken to it, but I agree that it is the contract length that is important and not just the period from when the Bill becomes law.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

We are all agreed that we should be talking about contract length, but my amendment is the only one that refers to it. That is the point that I am trying to make.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, in respect of competition, says that there must be at least an opening in the future for these revenue certainty mechanism contracts to be awarded competitively. He seeks to put this in the Bill now and appeared to say that, if this is not done now, through a device such as that which he is proposing, there would not be in future an opportunity for competitive procurement. If I have misrepresented him, I will give way and be corrected—I see that he is about to rise, so I might as well complete the point before he corrects me. My understanding is that there is nothing to prevent competitive procurement taking place from day one under these arrangements. Therefore, it is not necessary to put in place an arrangement to secure it. I am open to being corrected on all hands about this, because I am groping my way in the dark through this thicket.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

I agree with what the noble Lord has said. The Minister provided the clarification at Second Reading that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents competition. However, for consistency with the other legislation that I outlined that has such direction on similar competitive processes in the energy Acts, and for clarity on the strategy, it would be beneficial to have that process set out in the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that. I am glad we are broadly ad idem, but he helps me to my third point.

The assumption by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, appears to be that the procurement of all future SAF, including non-HEFA SAF and potentially at some stage power to liquid, will have to depend upon or be supported by a revenue certainty mechanism, or at least some form of subsidy or support from the state. That appears to be the assumption. I wholly deprecate that assumption. It is appalling that we should embark upon this project with a view to a regime of perpetual subsidies. If SAF is not rapidly producible on a commercial basis in this country then, as I shall come to in other amendments, the whole project should be reconsidered at this stage.

However, I am comforted in thinking that the Government do not envisage perpetual subsidy by my reading of Clause 1(7) and (8). These are the subsections that I referred to before, so I will not read them out again, but why would the Government put in place what is, in effect, a sunset clause if they envisaged a need for perpetual subsidy? The Minister may want to confirm this, but subsections (7) and (8) taken together are a sunset clause. At the end of 10 or possibly 15 years, no more contracts can be awarded without further primary legislation. There is a degree of confusion, which I may have participated in, concerning what we are discussing. We are giving the Minister the opportunity to bring a blast of fresh air to clear the fog and explain it all to us, so that we know what we are talking about, because up to now I am not entirely sure that we all do.

My Amendment 2 has been explained very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I do not need to elaborate on what it says, but I have not yet given any rationale for why it should commend itself to the Committee. Amendment 2 seeks to limit the length of contracts. The reason is very simple. This Bill is a large slice of corporate welfare. Having given to the industry, through the SAF mandate which we approved last year, a guarantee of uptake of SAF so that you know that your product is going to have to be bought, this is not enough for them, and we are now going to give them, in addition, a guaranteed price. That is what they are demanding.

I do not blame them for demanding that. Let us have guaranteed demand and a guaranteed price—that is a very pretty place to be in. Let us transfer all the risk somewhere else. Who is going to pay that guaranteed price? Not the Government, because it is not a subsidy. They have discovered from the electricity market the contract for difference, which the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has referred to as a model—a structure which has given us the highest electricity prices in the civilised world. This points to the cost of SAF falling on the airlines and, potentially and ultimately, on the passenger. We will come to this later, but the Government have assessed what that might mean in pounds per ticket. That is the subject of a later amendment which I will not trouble your Lordships with now.

Recognising the large element of corporate welfare in the Bill and the need to get away from that and to incentivise competition, I suggest that there should be some basis for limiting the contract, and therefore the benefits that accrue to the producers of SAF. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harper for supporting this. I have suggested 10 years, which is of course an arbitrary number—it might be six years, it might be seven years, or it might be eight years. I have also suggested including a break clause, which I put at five years, so that if the Government saw that this was all going well and that the thing was becoming commercial, they could walk away—which must be their ambition. I put that break clause at five years, which is an equally arbitrary number. If the Minister agreed on the principle, I am sure that he and I could sit down and rapidly agree a maximum length of contract and an appropriate term for the break clause.

It is in that direction that we should be looking if we are not to burden young people. There are not so many young people in the Committee this evening. Many of us are getting to the point where our best flying days are behind us, but when you look to young people who perhaps work in other parts of the House and say, “You are going to be paying for this for the next 20 years. You and your wives and children, and even potentially your grandchildren, are going to be paying for this slice of corporate welfare, so if we don’t get it right the burden falls on you”, and one thinks about that, then of course one is moved very strongly, and is surely moved in the direction of supporting my Amendment 2.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

4: Clause 1, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“(9) A direction given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) may only require the designated counterparty to enter into a revenue certainty contract with a producer in respect of sustainable aviation fuel that is, or is projected to be, manufactured at a production facility located within the United Kingdom.(10) For the purposes of this Act, no sustainable aviation fuel producer shall be eligible for a revenue certainty contract if any certified component fuel or precursor which constitutes more than ten per cent of the final sustainable aviation fuel volume is not also manufactured at a production facility located within the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to legally ring-fence the financial support provided under the Act, preventing the levy raised from UK aviation fuel suppliers from being used to subsidise sustainable aviation fuel production facilities located outside the UK.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling, who has taken the deepest and most knowledgeable interest in the Bill but has had to excuse himself from the Committee because of pressing family matters. However, it is not my intention to speak to his amendment; I wish simply to create an opportunity for other noble Lords who may wish to speak to it to do so. I will say in regard to it, speaking, if you like, from the Front Bench, only that it raises very interesting questions about the potential beneficiaries of the revenue certainty mechanism and whether they are tied to production within the UK itself. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the questions implicit in the amendment. For now, I beg to move.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling and the similar Amendment 18 in this group in the names of other noble Lords. They both have the same intention, which is to make sure, as set out in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, that the point of the revenue certainty mechanism is to support UK SAF production, not SAF production that takes place elsewhere. I think my noble friend Lord Grayling had two purposes in tabling the amendment: first, to make that point explicit; and, secondly, to test with the Minister what definition of UK production the Government are going to adopt in their contracts. What does that mean for the components of the fuel, and where do the different stages of production have to take place? What will be the lines about what qualifies as UK production?

Clearly, what we are intending to do, certainly with the plants that have received capital support from the Government, is to have the end-to-end process here in the UK, the plants here in the UK and effectively all the value created in the UK. But there may well be businesses that do only part of that in the UK. It is important for the Government to be clear about where the lines are going to be and what they are going to insist on in the contracts, so that the money coming from UK consumers is going to support UK jobs as part of that industrial policy. That is, after all, the point of this. There is no point in having a revenue certainty mechanism if all it is going to do is deliver SAF production elsewhere in the world. We could just let it get on with it, frankly, and not be too worried about it.

The point is to make sure that we produce that fuel here for two reasons, as I understand it. One is the industrial policy argument of making sure that we develop the technology here, but there is also the learning from what happened during the Covid pandemic when countries resorted to holding on to essential fuel supplies for their own industries. During that period, the international trade in some of these internationally traded commodities gummed up, and we found that some of those strategic supplies were not available. UK production is important for both those reasons, and I think it would be of benefit to the Committee to hear from the Minister exactly how the Government are going to deliver that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I join the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in sending the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, our good wishes for him and his family. I congratulate the noble Earl on his recent nomination for a life peerage. That is an odd sentence to say, but there you go. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has got lucky by signing this amendment, as she will shortly hear.

The revenue certainty mechanism is intended to support only eligible SAF plants in the UK, and this will be ensured through the allocation process. This Government are committed to supporting the UK SAF sector through our advanced fuels fund, which is supporting projects across the UK, and through the revenue certainty mechanism. The UK SAF sector will create jobs and growth opportunities in the UK, help secure a supply of SAF for UK airlines and enhance energy security.

On Amendment 4, SAF projects that use imported precursors still offer significant economic benefits to the UK because of the investment needed to construct them and the employment that they would provide. I fully recognise the strong points made by noble Lords this evening around UK production being in the Bill, and I will seriously consider this point ahead of the next stage of the Bill. I will invite noble Lords who have spoken tonight—or rather those who tabled the amendments—to meet me and my officials ahead of the next stage. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

7: Clause 6, page 4, line 19, after “contracts” insert “in respect of sustainable aviation fuel manufactured in the United Kingdom”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the levy is raised for the purposes of manufacturing sustainable aviation fuel in the United Kingdom. Connected with another amendment in the name of Lord Grayling, it seeks to prevent the government from diverting the levy funds to other broader aviation or climate-related policies.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, for the convenience of the Committee, I rise to move Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling. While I am on my feet, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on his demotion to a mere barony. I assure him that it will pass, and his family will be able to resume their Earl-like status, I hope for many generations to come.

I wish to speak to my Amendment 11 in this group. I will try to put this in language that I understand—that is, fairly simple language. The levy has to be allocated. If the contracting party has to make payments to the producers of SAF, it will fund this by a levy, and the levy will be applied high up the supply chain; it will be applied to the producers of fuel. The people who produce aviation fuel will be adding a certain amount of SAF to their kerosene—an increasing amount each year—before then selling it to the airlines. As I understand it, that is the mechanism.

The question is: among the competing producers of aviation fuel, how is the levy to be allocated from one period to the next? I will assume for the sake of simplicity that the allocation period is a year. There is no necessity that it should be a year—it could be done six-monthly or monthly—but the Minister can say whether the Government have a clear intention about that.

My understanding is that the Bill envisages that the allocation will be based on market share. Market share can be measured only in retrospect. You can know what a company’s market share was last year or in the last six months; you will not necessarily know what its market share will be for the year to come. But, of course, companies are selling aviation fuel in the year in which they are acquiring market share, so they will not know what their levy is until the end of the year, or period, in which the levy is allocated to them, according to their market share. It will be impossible for them to have a clear notion of what they should be adding to the price of the fuel to compensate themselves for the levy. It is envisaged that they should compensate themselves for the levy through adding to the price of the fuel and selling it on, which is how the airlines and ultimately the passengers pick up the cost.

This is presented by the industry—to me, at least, and maybe to other noble Lords —as a very serious practical difficulty. The tendency will be to overcompensate and add more to the price of fuel than is strictly necessary to cover a levy which companies can only vaguely guess at. I accept that their market share is unlikely to jump wildly from one year to another. That does not happen in mature businesses; I do appreciate that. But the levy is quite sensitive even to modest adjustments in market share from one year to another. To get an accurate price to pass on to the customer, relying on retrospective market share is simply not going to cut it and the result may well be that customers end up being overcharged.

It would be better if the counterparty were able to calculate the levy on a transparent pence-per-litre basis. Another point of capital importance is that this could then be added to invoices so that anyone buying aviation fuel—which would normally be airlines, of course—would see clearly on their invoice how much had been added in respect of the levy. There is a suspicion in the industry, which I am sure the Minister wants to dispel, that the Government would rather obscure the additional cost of the levy, and that a system whereby it was written plainly on the face of an invoice would be unwelcome to them.

It would be useful if the Minister were to dispel that view, but I will leave aside that issue. Even if it were not a consideration, there is the important practical consideration of how this will be calculated by companies which will not know what their levy is going to be. This is an extremely serious issue about the implementability of the Bill. It is bound to come back on Report, because the Bill will not work unless this is sorted out; at least, it will not work in the way that the Government intend.

With that, I recommend my Amendment 11. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak mainly to my noble friend the Minister’s Amendment 20. This is perhaps an odd order in which to speak on these things, but it does enable my noble friend to respond to me after I have spoken rather than before; I am sure that he would welcome that.

I want to talk about the relationship between sustainable aviation fuel and the production of renewable liquid fuels that could be used in home heating. I raised this at Second Reading and highlighted what I thought was a key point. The production of sustainable aviation fuel, particularly through the HEFA process, generates hydro-treated vegetable oil—HVO—as a by-product. In fact, HVO accounts for around 30% of the output—a significant quantity, I believe.

In the consultation on alternative heating solutions published a couple of weeks ago, the Government rightly acknowledged the role that HVO could play in decarbonising off-grid homes. I declare that my home is off-grid and relies on oil. Indeed, the Government highlighted that it would be the most cost-effective option for consumers of all the options considered. However, the consultation still questioned the feedstock availability of the fuel. What really pleased me was that, in the last few days, a Written Answer has been given to a Member of Parliament in the other place. It states:

“As of the 1^st of January 2025, a market for low carbon fuels for use in aviation and road transport has been supported under two separate schemes”—


the SAF and the RTFO. It continues by saying that targets under both these mandates

“are set considering global availability of feedstocks and competing demands between transport modes and across sectors of the economy”.

It basically says that there is enough material for both aviation and home heating. I think that is a major step forward.

When my noble friend comes to discuss his Amendment 20, I hope he will include a consultation with me, a few colleagues and our noble friend Lord Whitehead, the Minister for Energy Security, to discuss the significant benefits of working together for these two uses given that we have this Bill and a DESNZ consultation. I hope that this is just the right time to have such a discussion because it is a sensible strategic step towards meeting our decarbonisation goals.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government’s amendments set out the requirement to consult the devolved Governments before making regulations under the regulation-making powers set out in Clauses 1, 3, 10 and 11. These powers are in Clause 1(8), which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations extending the period of time under which they can direct the counterparty to enter into contracts by up to five years at a time; Clause 3(1), which gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations requiring the counterparty to maintain a register of information on revenue certainty contracts and publish details about them; Clause 10(1), which gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations requiring the counterparty to pay a surplus to levy payers, and require levy payers to pass on the benefits of that surplus to their customers; and Clause 11(4), which gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations which amend financial penalties in line with inflation, and make provision on how a company’s turnover is determined for the purpose of financial penalties. I conclude that this does not affect the delivery of the Bill or the policy intent. Final decisions will still be taken by the Secretary of State for Transport.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 6, as amended, should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, since we were congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Russell, earlier, may I take this opportunity—it may surprise him a little—also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on his new peerage and continued membership of your Lordships’ House?

In rising to resist, for the moment, that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill, I am moved simply by the letter and comments of the Constitution Committee. The Constitution Committee wrote on 5 November to the Minister to say that, while it understood that

“a degree of flexibility is required”,

it regards

“the lack of specificity in the Bill”

about the levy, which is set out in Clause 6,

“as a potential inhibitor of detailed legislative scrutiny”.

The Minister made certain remarks that relate to this in the last group. He was very bland and reassuring in explaining that we must not know anything about the levy at this stage, while we have a chance to scrutinise it, because it is all being consulted on and will look absolutely wonderful by the time it comes out. But that was not enough for the Constitution Committee, and it is worth making a marker at this point that it is not necessarily enough for noble Lords.

At the very least, I would have thought that the Constitution Committee deserved a reply to its letter, but I understand that it has not received one. The Minister might want to give an assurance that he will reply to the letter to explain why this lack of specificity is justified and what compensates for the fact that legislative scrutiny is not being permitted in relation to the levy.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this stand part notice is interesting, and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, explains why it is tabled. It seems to be almost wrecking the Bill if you are trying to remove the mechanism. The purpose of this Committee is to look at the concerns and issues, and to try to find the best system in this complex area. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this, because our view is that it is important to keep the mechanism in the Bill. Clearly, a committee has expressed some concerns, and it will be useful to hear from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, since they are both still in the Chamber, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on their life peerages so that they will remain with us. I will not get into the ranking thing we got into earlier, but it is very good they will both still be with us.

On the substance of these amendments, transparency is broadly a good thing. As I said in response to an earlier amendment, being transparent about this is very helpful. Given that Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talks about reporting on progress, this might be a suitable opportunity to ask the Minister, when he winds up this group, to respond to the question I asked him at Second Reading and provide the Committee with an update on the plants we hope to see in the UK and where they have got to. The Minister very kindly responded to some of the questions Members raised at Second Reading in his recent letter of 2 December, including one or two that I raised. I am very grateful to him for being courteous and doing that as he said he would, but he did not touch on where we were at with those plants. Given the significant amount of money in the various rounds of support that we have given—both through the Aerospace Technology Institute and directly from government—it would be helpful for the Committee to have an update on some of the timeframes. We have been contacted directly by some of the providers with updates on when they think their plants will be ready, but it would be helpful to have that wider picture.

Although the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, knows that I do not agree with her overall view about aviation—we had that exchange at Second Reading—I will take the opportunity, as it does not happen very often, to support the thrust of her amendment. Transparency is very helpful. She will know from my comments at Second Reading that I generally do not support the use of food crops being grown specifically for this purpose, but she will also know I have one potential exception: if, by doing so, we can keep the present United States Government focused in this space, it would be a win.

I am grateful for two points the Minister made in his reply. First, he confirmed that the Government were working closely with the US Administration and wanted to keep them on board. That is helpful. Secondly, he confirmed—I hope this was welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that the Government set very high sustainability standards for SAF in the UK and were looking to make sure the revenue certainty mechanism was in line with that approach and did not trespass on it.

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there is no point in us doing great things in the United Kingdom if the result is that we just drive poor behaviours elsewhere, so having some transparency on that would be very helpful. The specific amendment may or may not be able to be improved, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the Government intend to add extra transparency to the Bill on Report, or whether we will need to return to that ourselves and use the collective set of amendments here to do some sensible reporting.

We have to make sure that it is balanced and that we do not put undue burdens on people, but transparency in this space would be helpful for the industry in explaining what is going on, as well as for consumers. Given that there is a cost to this, showing consumers what is happening, and the cost of that, would be helpful in demonstrating the trade-offs that we are having to make in this space. I am broadly supportive of this group of amendments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, generally speaking, monitoring is good, and reporting is better. If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, want to engage over the next few weeks on the drafting of amendments that could achieve that in a way that is not overly burdensome to those charged with doing that reporting, or overly expensive, I am sure we would be happy to discuss that with them.

On Amendment 19A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I will save my comments for the last group, in which the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and I have some interesting amendments on precisely these questions of what the source and feedstock of the sustainable aviation fuel are going to be, and what constitutes sustainable aviation fuel. I would be repeating myself if I were to address those questions now and again later.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

19: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact of this Act on the price of airline tickets(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report to assess the impact of the sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty mechanism on the price of airline tickets.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of whether the impact of the sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty mechanism on ticket prices is greater than £1.50 per ticket per year.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (1) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks probe the impact of the sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty mechanism on airline tickets. In particular, it seeks to probe whether the impact is in line with the Government’s analysis as set out in the Department for Transport’s ‘Revenue Certainty Mechanism Cost Benefit analysis’, which suggests that the likely impact on ticket prices is between -£1.50 and £1.50, on average, per year.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 19 and the other amendments in my name in this group. These amendments cover two topics, and I will try to deal with them fairly briefly, but they are very important. Even if the speech is short, the resonance and consequence of the amendments is long.

There will be a cost to the revenue certainty mechanism that will be distributed to airline passengers through their air fares. How much is it going to be? We are not in the dark on that subject, because the cost-benefit analysis produced by the department makes a stab at this. Paragraph 4.23 says:

“Overall, the Revenue Certainty Mechanism, when covering a limited but reasonable amount of non-HEFA SAF volumes, is likely to result in a small impact on ticket prices. Depending on non-HEFA SAF prices and whether the levy costs are offset by fuel cost savings, the likely impact on ticket prices is between -£1.5 and £1.5, on average, per year”.


The only things of absolute fixity in that sentence are the numbers and the phrase “per year”. Almost everything else consists of a caveat, although I accept that a forecast of this type will have to be caveated to some extent. I want to explore some of the caveats in the next group as well, not merely here. What are we talking about when we refer to non-HEFA SAF? I have an amendment in the last group to explore that.

However, at this stage, I want to know how far the Government are willing to go to commit themselves on the £1.50 cost—let us take the upside—per ticket. Bear in mind that this £1.50 per ticket is the cost not of SAF but of non-HEFA SAF produced using the revenue certainty mechanism in this Bill. SAF is already in use. It is being paid for by airlines and it is painfully expensive —much more than it was expected to be. It is already having a significant impact on airlines’ fuel bills. That is not included in the £1.50, which is purely for the mechanism that sits in the Bill.

How firm are the Government willing to be on this? This is of crucial significance to the public at large, who would like to see more sustainable aviation fuel. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is no longer in her place, regards that as a chimera. The public are happy to see it, but they want to know what it will cost them. If we are going to hold out a prospect, as the Government are, of a maximum cost of £1.50 per ticket for this—that is a significant sum for a family of four going on holiday—they would like to know that the Government stand behind it. Airlines that I have spoken to suggest that the cost will be much closer to £10 a ticket, so the Government need to give some justification for the £1.50. That is one of the two topics these amendments cover.

Moving on to the second, I have to apologise in a sense to noble Lords because it is of a more general character. In some ways, it would have been nice if it could have been contrived to come at the beginning of our debate this evening, but the rigidities of our system of numbering and marshalling amendments means that it appears at this late stage. I appreciate that not everybody is interested in it, but I assure noble Lords that, outside this Committee, there is a large audience that is very interested in this question—an audience of people who still believe, to some extent, in capitalism, the principles of Adam Smith and the notion of comparative advantage.

This is asking that the Government make some stab at assessing our comparative advantage in wishing to be a leader in this field. This is, after all, a measure designed to make us a domestic producer, rather than an importer, and a globally leading producer of non-HEFA SAF, compared to the rest of the world. It is, as I said at Second Reading, an industrial policy Bill rather than a net-zero Bill. The SAF mandate was a net-zero measure; this is an industrial policy measure. It is a decision by government that this stuff has to be produced here and not imported—a decision by government that we should be a leader in this field.

The question is: what on earth do we have by way of comparative advantage that means the Government should have alighted upon this particular economic activity as one in which we are to be—or in which we can be, or it is suitable that we should be—a leader in the field? Do we have access to particularly rich streams of feedstock, for example? If non-HEFA SAF—some of it at least—is to be produced from old cabbages collected from people’s kitchens, are our cabbages better than somebody else’s cabbages? Do our wood cuttings and so forth have a particular advantage or a greater richness of oil-bearing quality that puts us ahead of the field? I suspect that the answer to that is no.

Is our refining capacity cutting edge and world leading for turning these things into a usable fuel? I do not know a great deal about that—I see that there are noble Lords in the Committee who, I suspect, know a great deal more about it—but what I do see, as an ordinary reader of the newspapers, is that we are closing down our refining capacity as fast as we can. Far from being a leader, we are falling behind. Of course, this process will be very heavy on electricity usage; I think nobody denies that. Yet we have contrived, no doubt in the interest of saving the planet—I will not go into that further at the moment—to have the most expensive electricity in the civilised world. Do we have skills particularly, or an existing workforce? None of these things are apparent.

So what I am asking—I do not think it an unreasonable request—is that, before the Government launch us, and taxpayers’ and airline passengers’ money, into this reckless scheme of being a world leader in something in which we have no apparent comparative advantage, they set out the economic case for doing so. The contrivance here is that the amendment would be inserted as a commencement blocker, so that the Bill could not commence until this has been done, but I am not wedded to that; it is merely a way of inserting it into the debate. But the Government owe it to the public to have a better case and a better argument for why they should do this.

After all, this is not our first attempt to produce SAF. In the last few years, we have had schemes such as the advanced fuel funds, the Green Fuels, Green Skies fund, the Future Fuels for Flight and Freight competition, and others. But despite those, around 90% of the SAF used in this country is still imported. Why has this not taken off domestically already, with that level of support, if we have the sort of advantage that we should be able to bring to bear, and that will make a success of it this time? I, at least, would like to know. I beg to move.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the first of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendments—the one about transparency and the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on ticket prices for consumers. As I think he acknowledged, this is an area where consumers want to see sustainable aviation fuel used, but it is reasonable that they understand the cost of it. Many people who fly are very sensitive to the cost. The industry is very conscious, in all the conversations that I have had with it recently, but also previously, when I led the Department for Transport, about the importance of delivering sustainability at a low cost that does not impact significantly on consumers, and particularly does not price the least well-off, most price-sensitive consumers out of the market and stop them flying. So I think this level of transparency specifically about the cost from the revenue certainty mechanism is very welcome.

As my noble friend said, that is not the only cost from developing sustainable aviation fuel, because there is obviously the cost of SAF that is bought from outside those UK plants that benefit from the revenue certainty mechanism, so I strongly support the thrust of my noble friend’s amendment and I will listen carefully to what the Minister says about whether the Government will bring forward any measures on this; it would also support what they had in their impact assessment.

As a final point on this amendment, I agree with my noble friend that the impact assessment is clearly an assessment, an estimate. No one is going to beat the Government up if it is not quite right, but there is a big difference between a £1.50 charge per ticket per year and a £10 charge per ticket per year, or more, and it is important that we have a rough idea of where we are on that, so that is very welcome.

On the other amendments, I will add just one thing which I alluded to earlier. It is not just an industrial policy question, it is about security of supply, particularly if there are certain circumstances that impact it, as we saw during the pandemic or as we might see if there were another energy price shock. Actually, there is an industrial policy question about producing stuff in the UK; there is also a question about availability or making sure that we have access to those fuel supplies. Both questions are important, as is having the Government be clear and transparent about it.

Both the previous Government and this one have set out some of the thinking in terms of the decision we made to have the advanced fuels fund and the different rounds of that. We have set out some of the thinking in the money that has been going into this through the ATI funding as well. Bringing all that together and having a very clear exposition of the Government’s policy in this space is welcome and will actually do nothing but benefit the Government. So, although I am not sure that the mechanism for delivering it is the right one, I think the thrust of my noble friend’s amendment is right and I strongly support its intention, if not the specific mechanism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government want to ensure that flying will remain affordable for UK holidaymakers and travellers while supporting a United Kingdom sustainable aviation fuel industry. A report on the impact of the Act on ticket prices within a year of its enactment would be premature. Costs need to be negotiated and signed, plants built and SAF produced and sold before any real impact on ticket prices can be measured, but the Government can control costs by controlling how many contracts are issued.

I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, what the effect on ticket prices from other countries producing this will be, but the Government’s cost-benefit analysis of the revenue certainty mechanism, which noble Lords have referred to, published in May this year, will remain the best estimate of the Act’s impact on passenger air fares over the next period, pending the mechanism working and SAF being produced in some volumes here. The Government take reporting to Parliament seriously. Where appropriate to undertake it, we can present an assessment of costs and benefits reflecting the latest available evidence, but that evidence is not there yet.

Amendments 23 and 25 would require the Government to publish an assessment on the UK’s comparative advantage in the production of SAF. The Government believe that this would be counterproductive and would delay the good progress that we have made for decarbonising the aviation industry through the SAF mandate and the advanced fuels fund. The Government and other noble Lords, including someone on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, are certainly more confident about the ability of UK industry to produce SAF than the noble Lord. The points from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, about security of supply are germane here.

The SAF industry has been calling for support to overcome the investment barriers. This Bill will help to drive our missions to kick-start economic growth and make Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment to secure the UK aviation industry’s long-term future. The Bill is a crucial step to establish a SAF industry in the United Kingdom and to drive investment, growth and jobs. I hope that the noble Lord is persuaded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, before I go any further, I just return to paragraph 4.23 of the cost-benefit analysis, where I read out something earlier thinking that I understood it, but now I do not think that I understand it at all. Perhaps it is a bit late procedurally for the noble Lord to explain it to me now; he might write to noble Lords. It says that

“the likely impact on ticket prices is between -£1.5 and £1.5, on average, per year”.

What is “per year” doing there? Surely, it is on average per ticket. Why does this say per year? That would assume that maybe you fly once a year. However, if you fly more than once a year, it would not be per year at all; it would still be per ticket, but it would not be per year. Explaining to me what that means would be extremely helpful.

What we wanted to hear—what the public wanted to hear—from the Minister on this particular question was that he put himself and the Government squarely behind £1.50 as the upper estimate of the cost of the measures in this Bill. He did not do that, and we have noticed it. It will get around. On this occasion when he had the chance, he could have said £1.50, as my noble friend Lord Harper said. Of course, it could be a bit more, it could be a bit less, but it is of the order of £1.50. He could have said, “That is what we the Government believe. I, Lord Hendy, on behalf of the Government, am putting myself behind that estimate: £1.50, not £10, not £15, but something of the order of £1.50 is what we are backing”. He did not, and we have noted that. We are not going to let that matter drop.

Concerning comparative advantage, the Minister made what I thought was an uncharacteristically sneering remark, implying that I did not think that Britain was capable of producing SAF. He was trying, I think, to draw a wholly false distinction between my views and the views of my noble friend Lord Harper. Britain can do anything—of course Britain can do anything. Britain can particularly do anything if we throw millions of pounds of subsidy at something. I think back to the day when Britain could produce vans at British Leyland because it was being given very large amounts of subsidy. That was until we found a way of producing cars in this country that did not require those subsidies and we became a leader in car production here under the flag of the Japanese, who invested in order to make a profit, not simply to farm subsidies. It is not a question of whether we can do something.

The whole point of comparative advantage is that you are comparing things. The question is whether this is the best thing we can be doing with the very limited money we have available, or are there other things that would be more productive and would bring greater prosperity to the country? What is the particular advantage we have in relation to this, which means that it is the thing that the Government should be backing?

Doing that does not need to hold up the Bill. It would if it were constructed as a commencement blocker, as it is at the moment, but we could of course all reach agreement around a table on a commitment for the Government to do this within six months of the commencement of the Act. It would not have to hold things up. It is a contrived objection. It is the complete lack of interest in the question on the part of the Government that is so depressing.

Despite those comments, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to earlier, I think this wraps up a number of points in previous groups. It is a good point at which to have this debate about what actually qualifies for support under the revenue certainty mechanism. First, I take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on their peerages. It is absolutely brilliant news, and I am really pleased for them.

There are two parts to this amendment, and I would like to deal with them in reverse order. At Second Reading, I asked a question on the eligibility of nuclear energy or nuclear-derived SAF. The Minister said:

“SAF produced using nuclear energy is and will be eligible for the SAF mandate”.—[Official Report, 20/11/25; col. 990.]


I noted that he said the SAF mandate and not the revenue certainty mechanism. What I am really after from the Minister is explicit clarity that nuclear-derived fuels are within the scope of the revenue certainty mechanism, and perhaps some commentary on how this flows through the legislation.

The reason for needing this clarity is that the legislative route is a little convoluted. Clause 16 defines sustainable aviation fuel as

“aviation fuel that is renewable transport fuel”.

Renewable transport fuel is defined in the same clause as

“anything that is (or is treated as) renewable transport fuel for the purposes of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004”.

As I said at Second Reading, I proposed the amendment to the Energy Act 2023 that led to the insertion of Section 131D into the Energy Act 2004, which treats recycled carbon fuels and nuclear-derived fuels as renewable transport fuels. But it was stated there that it required secondary legislation to take effect and to treat these fuels as renewable transport fuels. I noted that this has been done for recycled carbon fuels, but the secondary legislation has not been done for nuclear-derived fuels.

We have this quite convoluted route through the 2004 Act, the 2023 Act, the secondary legislation and the SAF mandate, so I would appreciate that clarity from the Minister on nuclear-derived fuels. That is the second part of my amendment to ensure that they would be within the scope of the Bill.

My second point is around the eligibility for this Bill of certain types of sustainable aviation fuel. I am seeking to exclude first-generation SAFs from the revenue certainty mechanism. I do not see the need for crop-based biofuels to be given support, because the production pathways for these fuels are already there—they are already commercialised at scale. On previous groups we have talked a lot about some of the issues with crop-based biofuels: they are CO₂ saving; they compete with food, potentially raising food prices; they drive land use change and reduce biodiversity. Those fuels have all those other effects, and they are already commercially viable and commercialised, so I cannot see why we need them to be within the scope of the revenue certainty mechanism.

That is brought out in a lot of the government guidance as well. The driver behind the Bill is to provide a mechanism for second and third-generation sustainable aviation fuels. That has been stated repeatedly by the Government. I cannot see a good reason for including these fuels within the revenue certainty mechanism. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts around that. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

If noble Lords do not object, I will speak now rather than later in this group because, having read his amendment, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, before Committee that it would be sensible if we grouped these two amendments together. We are both trying to get at the same thing and, in a sense, I am not going to say anything very different from what he said, but I am going to take a different approach. It is fair to say that both of us want to limit the deploying of these contracts, or at least to know what limits the Government are going to apply themselves.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said, Clause 16, states that

“sustainable aviation fuel’ means aviation fuel that is renewable transport fuel”,

and earlier it states that

“renewable transport fuel’ means anything that is (or is treated as) renewable transport fuel for the purposes of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004”,

in which the noble Lord played a certain part in amending in 2023.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Yes, that is what I meant to say in answer to the noble Lord. I do clarify that.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I was hoping that the Minister would simply and explicitly state that the Government do not intend to see the mechanism used to support all the fuels that appear in the Energy Act 2004 that are currently in scope and that he would look to an amendment to eliminate some of those to give assurance that this mechanism is going to be directed at the fuels we have been discussing and not at that broader list. Would he take advantage of this last moment of Committee to give that assurance that he will be happy with such an amendment and contribute to drafting it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

In answer to the noble Lord, I will not do that at this stage, but I will consider what he has just said.