Railways Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My noble friend has done nothing wrong, as per the Companion, but usually in Committee Back-Benchers speak before the Front-Bench winders. It helps if noble Lords understand when people speak. Before we get into a long debate, it is not in the Companion, and we have freedom to speak and to intervene—it just helps the flow of debate, when we have a long Committee debate ahead of us.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

So, technically, because I am the only Green, I am a Front-Bench winder as well. I just want to establish the rules.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Green Members often speak as part of the Back Benches, but the noble Baroness is of course welcome to speak whenever.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

78A: Schedule 2, page 79, line 2, at end insert—
“(b) protect or improve the environment or mitigating or adapting to climate change, or(c) secure, maintain or improve the accessibility of railway passenger services, station services, railway infrastructure or rolling stock for disabled persons.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment broadens the exclusion from subsidy control rules to include financial assistance with the primary purpose of environmental protection or accessibility.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am not going to speak briefly. I am probably going to compete with the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Harper, in the length of my comments and the thoroughness with which I cover the amendments. I have put my name on all amendments in this group, and I care very much that they are properly debated and understood.

The aim of Amendment 78A is to broaden the exclusions from the subsidy control rules. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 has created a fundamental split in the Bill which translates directly into how policy will be made and what can be done with public money. As I understand it, only funding for the primary purpose of infrastructure under Clause 3(1)(a) is excluded from the subsidy control rules. The implication is that everything else will be subject to them. I think that helps to explain the split between the different budgets, with infrastructure funded through the funding period review while operations and other areas, including capital projects and enhancements, come through the spending review, with a close eye being kept on cross-subsidy. That seems to run against the long-standing aim of GBR, going back to 2021, of bringing infrastructure and operations together. The Rail Industry Association warned last year that if track and train integration is to be achieved both need to be covered by the same funding process.

However, my specific concern with this amendment is public interest policy-making, particularly accessibility and climate. For accessibility, will these rules make it harder to reform and integrate funding programmes and plan investment in a rational way so that we can make progress as quickly as possible? On climate, the issue is even more complicated. Many of the things we have been talking about, and will talk about later today, are vital to increasing passenger numbers and shifting people from cars to rail. These could potentially be subject to subsidy control rules, which include things such as electrification and other capital investment. Environmental measures are also subject to additional requirements under the Subsidy Control Act—so this is a complicated and underdiscussed area, and I would like the Minister to explain the practical impact of these rules on accessibility, climate funding and policymaking.

This amendment would create exclusions for both, when the primary purpose of the financial assistance is to protect or improve the environment, mitigate or adapt to climate change, or secure and improve accessibility for disabled people. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance about how these subsidy control rules will work in practice and whether the Government would be prepared to look at exclusions of this kind.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, the Government remain committed to addressing the environmental challenges that we face and the provisions in this Bill will ensure that the railways continue to support the Government’s targets on climate change, air quality and decarbonisation. I, of course, concur with my noble friend Lord Liddle that we should not load the Bill, or indeed GBR as an organisation, with a huge amount of statutory duties when there is sufficient in the Bill to ensure that the organisation does the right thing in any event. I encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister and his team for their response. I will just make a comment or two. I am in such awe of the Minister’s extensive knowledge of railways that I always find his replies in these meetings very comforting. It is only when I walk away and start rereading them that I think, “Hold on”. I will be coming back to these issues on Report. That is a warning, not a threat.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, used a word that I had not used but will incorporate into my thinking: “vulnerability”. I think that that is what we are talking about with all these things. He is so environmentally aware that it is fantastic. It was good to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said about corridors in other countries. It comes back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, that none of this is new. We can do this. We have examples that we can take from other countries and even other railways.

Prince Philip once said to me—quite unkindly, I thought—that the problem with us Greens was that we never gave anyone else any credit for what they did. I took that to heart, because we do not. We think that other people never go far enough. It is never enough. We always want more. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, was absolutely right to say that Network Rail has been doing stuff—I really should accept that. The fire risks and the flooding are things that we really need to keep down.

To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, of course this all should have started 10 years ago—or 20, or 30, or 40. We have known about the climate crisis and its approach for well over 50 years. We should have been thinking ahead then, but we were not. This goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, was saying. Yes, the Tories were better in some ways, but they are regressing now. Had they listened to the Green Party, HS2 would not have started where it started and we would not have had the bat tunnel fiasco. Please remember that the Greens were right back then and we are right now.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Briefly, although I was not here for most of—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No, you did not hear—oh, you did.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I did hear the noble Baroness’s opening speech, actually, and I just heard her remarks. Briefly, one of the reasons why we were not concerned about the climate crisis 50 years ago was that we were being told by scientists then—and it was on the front page of the Economist, which I used to read assiduously every week—that we were about to enter a new ice age. That was the consensus then and that was the Green Party’s view of what we should be worrying about. The noble Baroness should not rewrite history to claim omniscience and always being right. What happened to the ice age, by the way?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I disagree very strongly with the noble Lord. If he had been listening to me back then, he would have heard me, and I did not talk about an incipient ice age.

Let me get back to my comments. To the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, of course the welded rails are part of the problem and I am absolutely delighted that she does not have a lot of noise from the railway going past her house. The fact is that we need to reduce diesel. I was disappointed that she could not fully support what I was saying, but I thank her anyway.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, this is not about putting everything in the Bill; this is about thinking about a future for humankind. This is directed to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as well, with whom I will have a word later. I am not trying to save nature for nature’s sake; it is because we rely on nature for our human existence. I do not understand why people just do not get that connection: no bees, no food, no humans. I am not saying that nature is more important than humans; I am saying that it is important for humans. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, supported anything I said. That is rather nice.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

Why?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I do not know. Perhaps I have not listened hard enough to what he is saying generally, but I thank him anyway. I assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was going to completely rubbish everything that I said, so I did not start to take notes. I look forward to all the other groups and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 78A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boateng for that introduction. I declare an interest in that, apart from having been involved years ago in the Channel Tunnel and Ashford station—getting that built in the right place was not very easy —I am now involved in one of the cross-channel services that he mentioned, Gemini, whose ambition is to stop trains regularly at Ebbsfleet and Ashford. It is all quite complicated because you have an independent infrastructure manager which obviously wants the maximum return. It operates local services to Folkstone, Dover and Ramsgate, I think, and they all have to be fitted in together. That is before you get involved in the frontier control issues, which I had probably better avoid for the moment.

On international services, which is what these are called, it is for the operator to decide its timetable of services and which stations it wishes to stop at, which is the same, really, as open-access operators in this country, with a few minor differences. It has to look at the costs of infrastructure, of police and of everybody else who has to be there; it has to find somewhere to park the trains at night, and all the other things that go with it. My noble friend’s point is that this needs some kind of economic encouragement—I hope from the Government. It is very similar to what should be being provided up in the north now, or in Wales, or even where I live in Cornwall—wherever it is needed—to try to balance the economies of these various areas.

It is then a question of who makes what decision as to where to run the trains. If it is an open-access operator—we have talked about that elsewhere in the Committee—we have the ability in the Bill to encourage or allow open-access operators if they do not get in the way of the other trains and the freight trains. It is more difficult when you get smaller operators that want to go on a short journey. Will they be allowed to operate? We really do not know that yet. The link between economic demands and what the railway can provide is fundamental. As my noble friend said, the needs of Ashford, and to some extent the rest of east Kent, are horrendous compared with other parts of the south-east. Therefore, stopping trains at Ebbsfleet and Ashford has many benefits; it also links to other routes down to Brighton and Hastings. It is all a question of the decisions the Government make on these various priorities, bearing in mind that they probably do not have too much money to spend.

I believe that the idea in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to abolish the ORR and create a new one would be a complete disaster for the railways, because I worked on rail freight as well. You need an organisation that can be seen to act independently on all the issues when you are trying to fit more trains than you can possibly need or want on to a track and decide who gets priority. There is the argument about fares, speeds and, basically, competition issues.

Over the years, the ORR’s terms of reference have been changed once or twice but it has mostly operated fairly and in a timely manner. We can compare its terms of reference and what it does with the Civil Aviation Authority or the similar one for maritime, whose name I cannot remember. All they do—I say “all”, but it is a very important thing—is to act as an independent appeal body, if you like, so that you do not have to go to court and you do not need the Competition and Markets Authority every time you want to blow your nose. The ORR, with whatever amendments are decided in this Committee and later, is a fundamental part of keeping the network fair and as full as it can be, and encouraging new operators. New operators, if my noble friend really wanted, could mean extra, more reliable traffic that is provided fairly and at the best possible price.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my stand part notice opposing Clause 20. A duty is being placed on the Office of Rail and Road that I do not understand, which is about promoting competition. I am trying to probe exactly what the Government mean by the ORR’s duty to “promote competition”. I am concerned that there is a lack of clarity here between promoting competition and regulating competition. The ORR already has a role in regulating competition under the Railways Act 1993, but Clause 20 appears to give it a separate duty to promote competition. I would like to understand what exactly that means in practice and why it is necessary.

This is not an issue that I will bring back on Report, because I cannot quite put enough passion into it, but we see that there is potential tension here because the ORR has a number of other responsibilities, including safety, access and economic regulation. The areas in which it is required to promote competition include important parts of the railway’s network services. I would like the Minister to explain how this new duty will interact with those other responsibilities. In particular, if there is a conflict between promoting competition and another statutory duty or the Government’s rail strategy, which takes precedence? I am not convinced that we need a general duty on the regulator to promote competition in the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

If I may help the noble Baroness—of course, I might be as lost as she is—the effect of Clause 20 is in fact to remove the competition duty of the ORR from everything in subsection 1, paragraphs (a) to (g), which is basically everything, more or less.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for explaining that to me. I would like to hear that corroborated by the Minister, if he would. This one obviously needs safeguards and so on.

My Amendment 331 is quite specific, but it raises two important questions about what we consider to be competitive parts of the railway. The first is rolling stock. We discussed on the first day the question of bringing rolling stock into public ownership. The Office for National Statistics is also considering the accounting treatment of rolling stock companies, including whether their leases should ultimately appear on the public sector balance sheet. I do not want to rehearse that whole debate here, but it is worth asking whether treating rolling stock as a competitive market should simply be taken for granted.

If the Government’s ambition is to create a genuinely integrated railway, which I hope it is, there may be circumstances where intervention in the rolling stock market is necessary. Removing rolling stock from this particular competition provision would at least allow that policy question to be considered without assuming that competition must always be the organising principle.

The second issue is passenger information systems. I would like the Minister to explain exactly what is meant by these systems in this legislation—if not, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, could help me out. This provision dates back to the Railways Act 1993, when the technology and structure of the railway were very different. If we are talking about the digital systems that allow information to be shared across the rail network, there is a strong argument for treating them as essential railway infrastructure. That would not necessarily prevent competition in ticket retailing or other services, but the underlying information infrastructure needs to work across the network. Can the Minister therefore clarify what systems are covered by this provision and why they need to be treated as a competitive market?

My Amendment 332 raises a broader question about the position of competition regulation within the new railway. As I understand it, the effect of this provision is that the ORR’s competition functions under Section 67 of the Railways Act 1993 will continue to apply to Chapter 2 of Part 1 of this Bill. However, the Bill also establishes a rail strategy and a set of general duties for Great British Railways, so I want to understand how these things fit together. If the ORR is applying competition regulation to the new strategy framework, could that regulation prevent GBR implementing something that is otherwise consistent with the rail strategy and its general duties, and, if so, which takes priority?

We have heard arguments that the ORR’s role is being reduced under this Bill, but this provision seems to leave it with significant powers in relation to competition. I would like us to be clear about where the balance lies. Are we creating a new railway strategy, which GBR is expected to deliver, while simultaneously giving the regulator the ability to intervene where it considers competition requirements have not been met? If that is the intention, the Government should explain how conflicts between those objectives will be resolved. I am not arguing against regulation where it is needed, but I question the idea that competition should be an end in itself. The purpose of the railway should be to serve the public, and competition should support that purpose rather than take priority over it.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I will address the government amendment that leads this group, which takes us back somewhat to the debates we had previously about the Civil Aviation Authority and the additional responsibilities that it was given.

I have significant misgivings about exactly where the Government are placing the ORR in this legislation and in the structure for the future. It has always seemed to me there are two prime functions, if there is to be a regulator at all. In a state-run railway, where the Government are, in effect, recreating British Rail—of course, in the past, there would not have been such a thing—the Government are creating multiple bodies around what was once a single national railway. The key issue is that the ORR’s job should be about ensuring that, where there is external access to the network for freight, for open access and for heritage railways—I see my noble friend over there—that access is provided on a fair basis and charged for on a fair basis.

I am not really sure I understand why this amendment is necessary. It takes the ORR into the field of consumer regulation, into the work of the CMA and into the world of competition legislation. When we debated the similar measure on civil aviation and the Civil Aviation Authority, we were dealing with a range of powers that the Government were seeking to give the Civil Aviation Authority, some of which the Minister himself rightly recognised—I am grateful to him—were too draconian. He stepped back from some of the original pieces in that legislation. Before we give him carte blanche to do this, in a Grand Committee where there is not the opportunity to divide as there is on the Floor of the House, he needs to explain in a bit more detail precisely what this entails. What is the ORR trying to sort out? What are the justice implications of this? What are the kinds of areas of criminal civil activity that this is designed to tackle?

Unless the Minister can set that out in a lot more detail, I will object to this going through this Committee today and say that he needs to come back on Report with much more information. He will recall our debate on civil aviation. I asked him a number of questions on which, through no fault of his own, because it was not his specialist area, he did not have the full information to hand. This, of course, is his specialist area, and I am sure that he has the information to hand. If he does not, this is not a matter that should be dealt with today.

--- Later in debate ---

It is important that there be some mention of the timings of these, including when they will fit in with the rest of the timetable, and on which days. I know from talking to heritage providers that they are scared they may be told that they cannot run trains for two weeks, even after they have taken reservations. We may wish to come back on Report with more detail or for more discussion—it is an important issue that could easily be brushed aside.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 128. I really want to go, but—

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Feel free.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is speaking to her amendment—and committing herself to hearing my speech and that of the Minister.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will relax and take my time, then.

Passengers’ journeys are very rarely just a train journey—there might be a bus to a station, a train and then another bus, or tram, or whatever—and if those parts of the journey do not connect properly, the whole journey becomes more difficult. I know this from personal experience. A missed connection, a long wait, separate tickets or poor passenger information can all make public transport less attractive. The National Transport Survey found that for England in 2023, 50% of public transport trips were across more than one type of public transport. That is why integration is one of the strongest levers we have for getting more people to choose public transport.

The Railways Act 1993 included a duty on the Secretary of State and the regulator to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system, and that duty has now been dropped. Amendment 128 would put some of that principle back into the Bill, by requiring the Secretary of State and GBR

“to promote the integration of railway passenger services with—(a) bus and coach services, (b) tram and light rail, and (c) micromobility.”

I also support Amendment 105 from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, which approaches the same issue from within the railway strategy. It specifically talks about improving connections and co-ordinating timetables, ticketing and passenger information, and includes ferry services. The two amendments complement each other rather well. One establishes integration as a duty, while the other sets out some of the practical things integration should mean for passengers. This is not just about making journeys more convenient; if we want people to make more journeys by public transport, the whole journey needs to work.

I ask the Minister why this duty to integrate transport has been removed from the Bill, and what will replace it. Will GBR have a clear responsibility to work with local and regional transport authorities to improve connections between different modes? Will the Government consider putting some of the practical elements in Amendment 10 —timetables, ticketing and passenger information—into the statutory framework? We have an opportunity here to create a railway that works as part of a wider public transport network, rather than as a system operating on its own. That should be one of the purposes of GBR from the very start.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, the Committee will be relieved to know that I am going to be brief. Noble Lords will have observed that my name appears on two of these amendments, the lead amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the excellent amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Beith.

First, on the heritage amendment, I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for many of the nice things he said about me and heritage railways. As far as they are concerned, I agree completely. I also alert the Committee to the extraordinarily beneficial effect of the amendment that was passed to the Employment Rights Bill making it legal for young people under 16 to volunteer on heritage railways and tramways, which has led to a substantial increase in the number of young people coming forward. The Heritage Railway Association is devoting its annual conference to the subject of volunteering. That was made possible as a result of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and I managed to persuade the House and the Government, with, I think, some help from this Minister, to see included in the Bill.

The other aspect of heritage railways that I want to mention is the fact that there are already a number of operations where heritage railways and the national railway are working closely together and providing timetabled services. I hope very much that it will be possible for those to continue under the new arrangements. North Yorkshire Moors Railway is running into Whitby, as it has done for a number of years, and Severn Valley Railway has just announced a new service in the timetable that is giving people in Bewdley the opportunity to commute to Birmingham with just one change at Kidderminster. This is a step forward, as it means that for the first time for many years Bewdley is going to have a decent train service at times when people want to use it, rather than one that is available just for heritage purposes.

On the excellent amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I remind the Minister of a letter that I forwarded to him from Moreton-in-Marsh Town Council last week. I spent considerable time in Moreton a couple of weeks ago to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Stratford-on-Avon to Moreton tramway, which they claim to be one of the earliest railways in Britain. It opened in 1826. Great events went on at both ends of the line, including a visit by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to the town where many of the public buildings bear the name of his family. Moreton-in-Marsh Town Council is asking for the Minister’s support for its application for funding from the Cotswold District Council’s community infrastructure levy to provide a community rail hub in Moreton-in-Marsh to bring railways and buses together and provide an integrated service. The council has already gone a long way to doing that and has expanded bus services, but if the Minister is prepared to give a nudge in that direction, that will go down extremely well. I thank the Committee for its indulgence in allowing me to, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, Box and Cox in the chair.

Railways Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to join this first group in Committee. I am sitting to the left of the Liberal Democrats because that is where I now find myself; I always want to be sitting behind my noble friend on the Front Bench in Committee to back him up, but I cannot do that because there is no back row in this Room, so I cannot be self-effacing in the back row. Anyway, I look forward to Committee. I do not have the experience of railways that the Minister and my noble friend speaking for the Official Opposition do—I do not pretend to that intimate knowledge of the railways—but I hope to bring something of my interest in how competition should be applied in the delivery of public services to some of the issues that we will be debating.

I turn to this group. There are a number of amendments in my name which are just about trying to find out, as I was going through the Bill, whether it works in the way described or precisely what it means. Rather in line with what my noble friend was just saying, we need to be sure that we understand that the Bill is functionally correct in the way that it works. I have just two amendments in this group.

Amendment 3 relates to the question of what must be wholly owned. As my noble friend said, Clause 1 is constructed around the proposition that Great British Railways not only must be wholly owned by the Crown but cannot be anything else. That relates to GBR itself. The purpose of Amendment 3 is to test whether that also applies to GBR companies. We do not encounter GBR companies in Clause 1, but we do subsequently as a means by which GBR will undertake its activities. This is not surprising. As my noble friend said, we do not know how GBR will be corporately structured but, by way of example, we know how Network Rail is structured. It has a significant number of wholly owned subsidiaries and quite a number of joint venture subsidiaries, including through Platform4.

For example—and here I declare my interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and others—Platform4 is a Network Rail subsidiary company that has just recently, happily, entered into an agreement with partners to develop at Cambridge North station as part of the Government’s proposal to develop around stations, with 450 homes around the station. It is a joint venture company; it is not wholly owned by Network Rail. So my starting proposition is that this prohibition on companies not being wholly owned must apply to GBR itself but cannot apply to GBR companies. I want to be sure that that is the case. If it is not absolutely clear in the statute then it ought to be, which would be the purpose of my amendment.

That differentiates the amendment from those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to which we will no doubt turn in a minute, who wants precisely that to be the case. For the reasons I have just explained about the many joint ventures for things such as housing developments and commercial developments around stations through companies such as Platform4, if I may respectfully say so before she has put her case, I do not agree with the noble Baroness that all GBR companies should be—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Who does?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Recalling Questions earlier, just because we do not agree with the noble Baroness, that does not mean she cannot sometimes be right.

The other amendment in my name is Amendment 4, which relates to shadow directors. Clause 2 tells us that Ministers are not to be construed as shadow directors under the Companies Act when they make decisions. I think it is the case that, when officials act on behalf of Ministers, exactly the same provisions would apply to them. We need to be absolutely sure that this is the case, and that it applies to the officials of Scottish and Welsh Ministers as well as to those of the Secretary of State. I am looking for a bit of reassurance on that.

--- Later in debate ---

What my noble friend is pointing out—which will be relevant, for example, to our debate on ticketing later, hopefully later today—is that, unless you see the draft of the approved document, you do not know to what extent it properly reflects what is in the ticketing settlement agreement now and is carried forward, or to what extent it proposes to change these things. Simply the fact of having a promise in the legislation that there will be a document is not necessarily sufficient for us to feel confident that the changes that we are implementing in legislation will come through in the way that we intend them to. I support my noble friend in trying to start this off in our amendments, to explore whether the legislation is working as we are told it should.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, with the permission of the Chair, I will do something I have not done in the 13 years I have been here as a Peer. The place name in my title is “Mole Skoomb”, okay? There is a railway station at Moulsecoomb, near Brighton; in fact, it is not in Moulsecoomb but in Bevendean, which is a source of great irritation to people living in Moulsecoomb; Moulsecoomb is a mile up the road. Anyway, it is pronounced “Mole Skoom”. Thank you.

I said in my speech at Second Reading that I welcome the Bill; the Green Party has long argued that our railway should be run as a public service, not for private profit, and that is exactly where my five amendments here are going: they all make basically the same point. It was very kind of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to point out that he did not agree with me; in fact, it sort of made me feel slightly better because, worryingly, there are times when I do agree with him, so it is good to get back on our tracks.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Tracks?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Sorry, I did not mean that.

What I am trying to do with these five amendments is to make sure that public ownership of our railways really means public ownership. The Bill, as it currently stands, could allow companies within Great British Railways to have private shareholders. The Bill is, or should be, about bringing our railways back into public ownership, and we therefore should not be creating a back door that allows private ownership to creep in.

This is the worry that the Association of British Commuters, We Own It and Bring Back British Rail have brought to us. They and the others are asking a very simple question: what exactly do we mean when we say that Great British Railways will be publicly owned? At the moment, the answer is not clear in the Bill. The Government made a welcome commitment that all the shares in the parent company of Great British Railways would be publicly owned, but does that extend to the companies sitting beneath it?

The Bill defines a GBR company as a subsidiary within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006. A subsidiary does not have to be wholly publicly owned; it can be partly owned by private investors, provided that the parent company retains control. We could have a railway where the parent company is entirely publicly owned but where companies carrying out important railway functions have private shareholders. Does that not fundamentally change what public ownership means? The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 used a much clearer definition: a public sector company had to be wholly publicly owned. The Companies Act itself provides the Government with the wording they could have used if they intended to require wholly owned subsidiaries. I think we have to ask this: why was that stronger definition not used here?

This is not helped by the Government not being clear about exactly which functions GBR companies will carry out, as the Bill gives these companies the ability to carry out potentially any GBR function. That could include train operations and infrastructure management, which leaves the door open to a very different railway in the future. In a worst-case scenario, the new definition of GBR companies as subsidiaries could even lead to the part-privatisation of rail infrastructure management—a direction of travel thought impossible in the UK since the days of Railtrack.

Railway privatisation has been a disaster: it fragmented the railways, drove up costs and put private profit ahead of passengers. We should not be creating a structure today that would enable a future Government to say, “Well, the legislation already allows private investment and we’re simply making use of the powers that Parliament has already given us”. These amendments would stop that happening. I should also say that I have not yet had the delight of meeting with the Minister, but I am sure that that is in progress.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to a number of the amendments in this group. First, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Moylan said at the beginning about ownership. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just said that this Bill is about public ownership, but actually it is not. That was the other Bill to which she referred; this Bill is about setting up GBR as the guiding mind, bringing track and train together—however one wants to characterise it. It is not essential to the core purpose of the Bill; the ownership structure is not core to delivering the services. My noble friend Lord Moylan was right to make those points in his opening remarks.

Of the specific amendments, Amendment 2 is very pertinent. My noble friend Lord Moylan focused on the “owned by the Crown” piece, but Clause 1(3) talks about Great British Railways being

“wholly owned by the Crown”.

Even if we accept that GBR should largely be owned by the Minister—in effect, on behalf of the public—who is able to direct things, I am not sure that we should be in favour of it being “wholly owned”. There is a very good argument for having some private capital. It might be that you want to get that capital involved in the company. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to infrastructure, and we may wish to use it for that and people could have a shareholding. It may be, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, that we would wish to have some joint ventures. I will give two examples.

One of the countries whose railways people generally admire is Japan. Interestingly, people involved in the railways in Japan largely admire how we do them, as well. There is an enormous amount of cross-fertilisation between experts from both countries. They have very successfully defrayed some of the costs of running their railway by using the value of the property in which the railway system operates—on top of, below or alongside —to generate some effective retail operations and other things that generate a significant amount of money. This keeps down the cost to the taxpayer from running the railway.

Network Rail does some of those sorts of joint ventures already in developing property and that seems perfectly reasonable. Even if we accepted that running the railway piece should be publicly owned—and I do not—it would seem perfectly reasonable if Network Rail, which will now become part of GBR, wished to have some joint ventures with people who develop property and people who help to maximise the returns for the taxpayer on the assets owned by GBR. The state is frankly not very good at doing those things, which are important not just to raise revenue to defray costs but to develop and energise the economy in some of our towns and cities up and down the country. Core railway assets are often where you could develop housing and other things to redevelop areas.

To give a specific example, there was a Written Answer from the Minister recently—forgive me, but I cannot remember whether it was answered yesterday or in the previous few days—about how the Government will develop Euston station. Originally, that was going to be done by HS2, but, when I was Secretary of State, we came to the conclusion that HS2 was probably not going to make a good fist of that. At that time, the Minister was the chairman of the Euston Partnership, which brought together representatives of the Mayor of London, local authorities and private sector companies involved in developing the station. We came to the conclusion that a development-led approach would be better, in order to develop a significant amount of housing for that part of London as well as private sector office and business space, as we had done around King’s Cross and St Pancras, which has had a huge impact on the economy. But that involves working in partnership with the private sector.

I do not know how in the end the Government will structure that approach, but it seems to me that it would be sensible at least to keep open the option that, at the very least, a subsidiary of GBR could potentially own a joint venture or part of the entity involved in delivering the development, either to help to run it or to share in some of the capital gain. You may or may not wish to do that, but ruling out the ability to do that does not seem to me sensible. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, which probes that issue, is sensible and has a lot of merit.

On the issue of private shareholders, I will make the argument just briefly, since this Bill is not about nationalisation, about where the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, misunderstands the point about private companies. As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, from the point of view of the consumer and the delivery of services, privatisation was for most of its life a massive success. It brought into the railways an enormous amount of private capital, new rolling stock, new services and a hugely greater number of people using the railways than had been the case under British Rail, under which passenger numbers had, frankly, been declining since the Second World War. It was a huge success.

Now, it is absolutely true that the passenger franchise model had some issues and, in fact, was effectively destroyed by the pandemic. I am not suggesting that we necessarily would have wanted to carry on with that model, but there are other models involving the private sector. For example, the way that TfL operates in London is that TfL specifies the services but, in a number of cases, it contracts with companies to run those. also, as the then Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Prime Minister set up the bus services that he wished to procure, but it was the private sector that delivered those. Those models seem to me perfectly sensible. If you set them up properly, the company makes money only if it delivers services that passengers require. That seems to me a very sensible model. I know that the noble Baroness does not agree with it, but I just wanted to set out how it actually works, as opposed to her characterisation of it.

The last point that I want to make is on Amendment 8, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, which talks about the organisational structure of GBR. The reason why that is important—I think we will come on to this in some of our later debates—is that it is, in effect, how you set up the organisation and, therefore, how it takes decisions and who takes the decisions within the structure.

Railways Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his valedictory speech. It was great fun. I do not think that we have ever met, but there is plenty of time before September, so perhaps we can get that in our diaries.

I do not say this often, but I welcome the Bill. The Green Party has long argued that our railways should be run as a public service and not for private profit. After decades of failed fragmentation, spiralling costs and confusing accountability, bringing the railway back under public leadership is important and overdue. The Bill is, therefore, a step in the right direction.

If we are creating Great British Railways, we must create a railway that is genuinely great: one that is affordable, accessible, integrated and capable of helping us meet the defining challenge of our age, which is the climate and nature crisis. At present, the Bill does not achieve that. It lacks ambition. For example, Great British Railways will have numerous duties, so why does the Bill not contain a clear duty to increase passenger numbers?

I welcome the target for shifting freight from lorries on to trains, but why is there no equivalent ambition to encourage more people out of their cars and on to trains? To do that, we must make train travel cheap and easy. For millions of people, the biggest barrier to travelling by rail is not whether a train exists but whether they can afford the ticket. Affordable fares are perhaps the single most effective tool available to increase passenger numbers, tackle inequality and reduce car dependence. Yet the Bill contains no explicit duty to promote affordable fares, and changes to the licensing arrangements of Great British Railways could see fares rising as there is less focus on public duties.

There seems to be even less ambition to create one system that covers the whole journey someone might take. As the Minister knows well, this works in Greater London, where TfL runs the London Overground under the mayor’s control. Manchester is moving that way, but what about democratic control over integrated transport for the rest of the cities and regions? People do not think in terms of operators or transport modes; they simply want one journey. Whether someone is connecting from a local bus, a tram, a cycle route or a ferry, the system should feel seamless. Integration should be one of the central purposes of Great British Railways, creating a public transport network where different modes work together rather than competing with one another. I hope that the Government will clarify how the railway will become genuinely integrated with other forms of public transport.

Rail is already one of the lowest-carbon forms of transport. We should be supporting every passenger to choose rail over driving or domestic flying. If we are to meet our legally binding climate targets, modal shift cannot simply be left in policy papers; it should be a statutory objective of the organisation that is responsible for running the railway. Staggeringly, environmental responsibilities appear only fleetingly in the Bill. There is little recognition that our railway must become climate resilient as extreme weather becomes more frequent or that it should contribute to restoring nature alongside the lines it manages. Some 10% of all train services were cancelled or severely delayed in the most recent heatwave in Britain. Last week, I spent six hours getting home instead of three, and I felt lucky to get home at all.

Great British Railways should have a clear public mission that recognises its contribution not only to transport but to our economy, our environment and our wider society. Passengers deserve the reassurance that a publicly owned railway will be judged not simply on financial performance but on whether it provides affordable access to work, education, leisure and family life. Profitable routes should be able to support socially essential services in rural and underserved communities, where success is measured not only in ticket revenue but in reducing isolation, supporting local economies and giving people a genuine alternative to cars. High ticket prices mean empty seats.

Equally important is protecting the workforce that keeps our railways running. I welcome the reassurances that the Government have given regarding the future of the Railways Pension Scheme, providing valuable certainty for thousands of rail workers. The future of Great British Railways will depend as much on the people who run it as it will on the infrastructure they manage.

Of course, the Bill misses one of the biggest opportunities of all: setting Britain on the path towards a fully electrified railway. Britain has spent decades pursuing a stop-start approach to electrifying its rail network. Only 39% or thereabouts of our railway is electrified, which is is well behind many comparable countries. We know what needs to happen. The Climate Change Committee has made it clear that substantially more of the network will need to be electrified if we are to decarbonise rail and meet our climate obligations. Yet the Bill is silent on this.

Finally, I hope that the Government will look carefully at how passengers themselves are represented. A publicly owned railway that fails to listen to the public will have missed the point entirely. Public ownership should not simply change who owns the railway; it should change for whom the railway works. Passengers, disabled people, local communities, rail workers, devolved Governments and regional authorities should all have meaningful opportunities to shape services, investment priorities and future strategies. Improving accessibility will be a huge benefit for our ageing population.

We also need more clarity on how mayoral, local and combined authorities will be able to control investment plans and services. The Green Party has long argued that rail should be viewed not simply as a transport system but as essential national infrastructure for delivering economic opportunity, social justice and climate action. Public ownership is not the destination; it is the foundation. The Bill moves us away from the disastrous experiment of fragmented privatisation—for that, it deserves support —but we should not settle for a railway that merely functions better than before. We should build one that actively reduces carbon emissions, restores nature, connects communities, integrates public transport, makes travel affordable and expands opportunity across every part of the country. Those ambitions really must be written into the Bill itself.

I welcome the Bill’s Second Reading and hope that, during its passage through this House, we can strengthen it so that Great British Railways truly lives up to its name as a railway that is run in the public interest, serving people, communities and the planet for generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)]

My Lords, I must confess I had mixed feelings when I saw that I had been drawn 30th out of 31 contributors to the debate this afternoon, but, in fact, it has been a huge pleasure. It has been an excellent and very well-informed debate, and it is a privilege to take part. I was particularly taken with the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. I thank the noble Lord for his service. I can tell, even as a relatively new Member, that he will be missed by the House.

It has also been a privilege to take part in a debate which has included contributions from a number of former Secretaries of State for Transport. They made the case for privatisation very well, using hard numbers: increased numbers of passengers, increased projects, improving reliability on the railways, and savings made, whereas, the proponents of this Bill, I fear, are relying largely on nostalgia. The reputation of British Rail, back as it was in the 1970s, appears to have undergone something of a renaissance in recent years. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Blencathra managed to puncture that particular balloon and remind us all of exactly what it was like.

I had the privilege to work for the Royal Mail in the 1980s and the early 1990s. We had a lot of dealings with British Rail. I would come into the office—I was private secretary to the director of operations here in London—and I would be faced every morning with a tray full of telexes; noble Lords will recall telexes, I am sure. Every one of them was about some form of delay or disruption to the mail overnight, and a very large proportion of those was due to failings on the part of our partner, British Rail. I would have to assemble those into a file and present them to the rather sceptical director when he came in later during the day. I can remember well how incandescent he was when I had to tell him that British Rail had forgotten to put fuel in a train and it had ground to a halt just outside Birmingham with its load.

I remember a particular day with some pride when we launched the mail train which ran from Euston station to Carlisle. We had a train full of bigwigs—directors from British Rail, directors from the Post Office; we had my noble friend Lord Jopling, who was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time, and Lord Clinton-Davis, who was his Labour opposite number. We set off from Euston with our hearts high, looking forward to reaching Carlisle. Unfortunately, something fell off the train at Nuneaton, and we ground to a halt and sat in a field for an hour, with nobody telling us what the reason for that was. Nobody on the train knew, least of all, of course, the senior British Rail operators who were panicking somewhat about the experience. It was a constant source of controversy and difficulty for us, because we knew, as a nationalised organisation, that if we wanted to please the Government, we would put all our letters on to the trains. If we wanted to help the environment, because we cared about that even in those days, we would put all our mail on to the trains. But if we wanted the letters to get there the next day, we would put them in a van and drive them ourselves, because that was the only way that we could guarantee the quality of service that people required from us.

I particularly enjoyed the early contribution from my noble friend Lady May. She raised the issue of devolution and the contradictions that that will raise. The Minister, having run Transport for London, will be only too aware, I am sure, of the contradictions and the challenges this puts in place for London and for other major cities around the country. When he was running Transport for London, he would have wanted the trains to stop at every single stop going into London, provide a metro service and pick up the maximum number of people possible, but when he becomes the one controlling mind that he presented to us, running the trains on behalf of the country, no doubt he will want them to run express services and stop in as few places as possible to keep to the timetable and connect the cities. That is before the contradictions and the challenges raised by increasing the amount of freight on the rails as well. Perhaps the Minister can explain to us how the concept of one controlling mind will meet what is known as the Makerfield test.

My noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham raised the issue of investment. Again, this is a serious problem. Public money is paid by taxpayers by and large because they expect it to be spent on schools and hospitals, and those things will have the priority. This is why the old British Rail was always so badly underfunded. When we look forward to the situation facing us now in the UK, we are in a world where we need to boost our defence spending and there are all sorts of other demands on the budget. Great British Railways is going to be very fortunate if it gets much money out of a government settlement with all those other high priorities competing.

Furthermore, there is an issue of London versus the regions. I know that when I was deputy mayor for London, we could always make a good case for investing in London’s railways because, if nothing else, if you put the money into London, you know you are going to get it back eventually—there will be a return on that investment. That is how we got the Elizabeth line, although I am sure the Minister remembers that it was quite tough to get. It will be even harder to get investment in projects outside London, which will not cost in so easily because they will not meet Treasury rules.

From my point of view, I would perhaps give some advice to the Minister. Transport professionals should rely a bit less on putting in massive projects—big toys for boys, if you like—and look at breaking that money up and spending it on smaller projects, which may not get the headlines but which can be completed much more quickly. That will have a demonstrable effect in improving the reliability of the rail services.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)]

Thank you. He was heard in silence, almost.

We often hear in such debates—we have not heard it too much today—about how much better the rail services are in other countries. I just want to let the House know that that is not just a debate or an opinion which is voiced by people in the UK. I remember that quite a few years ago, and the Minister will recall this as well, we brought in a man called Bob Kiley from New York to run Transport for London. I was in a hotel in the West End talking to some New Yorkers at the bar, and I said to them, “We’ve got Mr Kiley coming over to run our services”. They said to me, “Well, he’s made a much better job of your Tube than he ever did with our rail services in New York”. I said, “The only problem is that he’s actually not arrived yet”. So it is a truth that, when we travel, we see the best of people’s rail services; when we live there, we do not quite get the sort of service that we would expect. If the Bill is to be successful, I hope that that situation will be corrected.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, surprisingly perhaps, I welcome the Government’s attempt to strengthen airline passengers’ rights, especially with the worries about aviation fuel due to Israel and Trump launching a disastrous and illegal war on Iran. I am happy to support the Civil Aviation Authority being given additional enforcement powers to ensure that airlines comply with consumer laws. However, I am not so keen on legislation that makes it easier to expand airports, especially if that increases noise and pollution for people living in the immediate area or along the flight path. It is extremely bad for human health and well-being.

As a Green, I am well aware that a lot of what I say in your Lordships’ House is not supported by anyone around me and that my views on the environment, climate change and the disastrous path we are taking as humans are at best contentious and, at worst, regarded as plain wrong. I am just staggered by the lack of ecological awareness among Members of your Lordships’ House. It defeats me that noble Lords cannot understand the science, cannot see what is in front of them, and still support things such as airport expansion when we know it is bad for the planet—I exclude the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from this, obviously, and some of his colleagues. Luckily, there are people outside—many scientists and people who know what they are talking about better than I do—who can say that we are headed for disastrous circumstances if we do not take climate change seriously.

This whole Bill is just ludicrous in terms of the future of people and planet. I have mostly lost hope that this Government care about people and planet. They have lost all claim to be a green Government, with their attacks on nature in Britain and their decisions to expand aviation. The go-ahead for the expansion of London City Airport, Luton, Gatwick and Stansted means an extra 51 million passengers per annum. If the Government add Heathrow to that total, it is an extra 65 million. The Minister in his opening remarks said that aviation is a “cornerstone” of our economy, or some such. I would say it is a cornerstone of climate collapse. If we cannot see that, I would be happy to have one-to-one sessions with any Peer who would like to discuss this further, because, quite honestly, I am in despair at the lack of awareness about what our future could be.

As I said, luckily there are people outside. For example, Professor Bill Rutherford of Imperial College London said:

“The only way you can make aviation any more sustainable is to do less of it”.


All those extra flights result in either extra emissions or extra farmland taken up growing jet fuel, and that means rising food prices and more public subsidy.

The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill was appallingly named: there is no such thing as sustainable aviation fuel. That was infuriating as well. It is just greenwash that will leave future Governments needing to do the hard work of behaviour change to achieve net-zero targets. Actually, I am not a supporter of net zero. It is a ridiculous aim; we should be going for less than zero and cutting back completely. Net zero is unrealistic. It is real zero that we need, and less. The climate crisis is accelerating and this Bill would have been a chance to do something about that. Rather than promoting aviation, we need to cut back.

The first step towards stopping more flights leading to accelerating climate change is to deal with private jets. The rich are paying a lot of money for the privilege of wrecking our planet and the Government need to tell them that it is no longer acceptable. Being rich does not excuse you from your responsibilities as global citizens. Flying off for the weekend, perhaps every weekend, has consequences. The ice is melting, the seas are rising, flash floods and storms are becoming more powerful, and heatwaves and droughts are going to hit farming very hard. Our food supplies will be under threat. Change is happening now, not decades in the future. That means we have to act now as well, so private jets should be the first thing that the Government target to cut back on, and this Bill is the obvious opportunity to do that.

Next to the frequent flyers, the Government should be raising the aviation tax on people who take two or more flights a year. Frequent flying is something that well-off people do; we can discourage them by reflecting the true environmental cost in the amount that frequent flyers pay. Business flights have already changed since Covid made us shift towards online working and that trend must be given another shove.

Finally, we are experiencing another record-breaking year for temperatures in this country and across the globe. The next decade will see yet more record-breaking years, as will the decade after that. The decisions being made by this Government on aviation will add to the disaster that the younger generation will have to live and struggle with. I ask noble Lords to stop and rethink. I do not mean just the Government; I mean every single Member of this House who has supported the whole idea of aviation. Stop and think about what you are doing for the future—for your children and grandchildren. You are destroying their future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, for introducing the Bill. In this debate many Peers have been clear about the strength of our aviation sector. Indeed, it has been great to have insight from a flight operations officer, no less, in the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, and from pilots in the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kirkhope. This Bill and in particular the air passenger rights are much needed and welcome, along with the modernisation of our airspace.

In many clauses this is, as the Minister described, paving legislation, a framework designed to be filled in later through secondary powers, CAA rules and ministerial directions whose details we are yet to see. Paving legislation, as we have heard from many other Peers, by its nature raises more questions than it answers. But I personally remain hopeful that we will get all those answers either in a few minutes or certainly in Committee, especially with the work of noble Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.

Particularly welcome was the Minister’s engagement with some of us beforehand, including my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, last week. It gave me an opportunity to raise with the Minister the concerns of my noble friend Lady Brinton and others, which they will pursue in Committee, because of the lived experiences of disabled passengers. That remains a serious and unacceptable part of modern air travel. Our advance conversations went some way to providing reassurance, in particular that the Bill is not intended as a vehicle for airport expansion. We take that in good faith, but good faith is rarely the same as an absolute guarantee, so we welcome the reassurances already given from the Dispatch Box. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that we will be seeking more, and he will understand why. As a long-standing resident of Richmond, he will be only too well aware of the demands and needs, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, of local communities who are under flight paths.

The Minister mentioned the airports national policy statement and said it would be the opportunity for MPs and Peers to scrutinise any changes, but he will also understand that we will seek to embed that within some kind of statutory status. He will be aware that scrutiny of a statement does not sound like a strong opportunity for scrutiny.

I ask the Minister directly whether he can confirm on the record, when he sums up, that the powers in the Bill, including those relating to slot allocation and airspace direction, will not be used in any way to facilitate expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick. If airport expansion is on the agenda, this House deserves, frankly, a very different piece of legislation—one with substantive provisions on the face of the Bill, full environmental impact requirements written into statutes and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny at every stage.

That points to a broader concern about the Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation. The Government are asking this House to endorse a framework before we have sight of the regulations that will give it substance. It is a bit like being asked to buy a house without seeing any of the rooms in it. It is a regular practice that the Conservative and Labour parties in this House do not vote down statutory instruments or support fatal Motions. But without the heft and suggestion of that, we will not achieve what we want to achieve, which is having the potential for detailed scrutiny within the Bill.

Sometimes I miss the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on these occasions, because he will say, “Just vote for the fatal Motion, and then the civil servants will have to work the detail out”. It is a bit of a brutal instrument, but it is sometimes the only place we are left—and, of course, it is entirely academic because the Conservatives will never, or rarely, support a fatal Motion. That is the only way, if secondary legislation is the only direction.

On the face of the Bill, the consumer protection provisions, the new CAA rule-making powers, the reforms to slot allocation and the Secretary of State’s direction over airspace change all carry significant implications. Yet again, we will need more clarity on those.

On what I consider to be one of the most consequential provisions—that relating to slot allocation and airspace change—the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to make directions about the implementation of airspace changes. Slot and airspace decisions are not merely technical: they are levers over airport capacity. A reallocation of slots at a level 3 co-ordinated airport, combined with changes to airspace design and air traffic redistribution, can have the practical effect of facilitating expansion, even when the expansion has not been presented to Parliament or to communities as a discrete, clear policy choice. Communities living under flight paths, enduring the noise and breathing the emissions, deserve better than to find that outcome enabled quietly through delegated legislation. Any exercise of these powers that has the practical effect of facilitating increased capacity must be preceded by meaningful community consultation and a proper environmental impact assessment. My second question to the Minister is this: what environmental and noise tests will apply before the Secretary of State exercises directions under this Bill?

Like the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I am intrigued to learn what happened to the consultation, which was in 2023, I believe. I noticed that, in the notes we had when we met with the Minister, there was an assurance that no decisions on specific changes to the airport slots regime have been made yet. It says that industry views will be sought, including through formal consultation. It does not reference the consultation of communities on that. I wonder whether the Minister can elaborate on that, along with the very useful consultation of pilots as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Barber.

I turn to the part of the Bill that we hope is at its heart: consumer and passenger protection. The Bill will grant powers to the UK to diverge from retained EU law as it relates to the aviation industry. It is critical that, where this is done, it does not come at the expense of passengers. UK 261 gives passengers rights to compensation for delays and cancellations, but, as we have heard from noble Lords, it has been patchy. Last year, the CAA had to pursue enforcement action to recover over £1 million in refunds owed to passengers for just one budget airline. It should not require a regulator to chase each airline individually for compliance with basic rights.

The EU is currently reforming EU 261, as we know, including maintaining the right to compensation after a three-hour delay and banning fees for basic check-in and child seating. I would be intrigued to know whether the Government intend to keep pace with that. I do not want us to follow that if it is a low common denominator; let us pursue the highest common denominator, whether it is EU 261 or UK 261. We also believe that there is a compelling case for a passenger charter embedded in this legislation: a clear, accessible statement of a passenger-first approach, with statutory weight, not buried guidance. No one could have made a more eloquent case for something along those lines than the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, so I hope she will support it, but I suspect not, given the Bench she sits on. She gave a very eloquent argument about what I think should be a passenger charter.

On accessibility, the new regulatory framework must ensure the CAA has robust enforcement powers over accessibility rights, not just in guidance. My noble friend Lady Brinton shares similar experiences to those outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson; the mum of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey; the noble Lord, Lord Holmes; and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has shared in the past with this House her appalling experience at the hands of WhizzGo, which insisted on the impossible task of her removing from her wheelchair and carrying two large batteries, bigger than bus batteries. She was evicted from a flight, stuck in Bucharest for seven hours, and then had to pay an additional £900 to get home. We will work with others to ensure that measures such as a wheelchair passport, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is suggesting, are included in the Bill.

On Clause 8 and the new powers relating to CAA rules, we will want to understand the scope of those powers, when they can be exercised and what parliamentary procedures apply. We look forward to guidance from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report—we have not seen that as yet. The accumulation of wide delegated powers in the Bill deserves this House’s sustained and skilled scrutiny. It is no surprise that so many noble Peers raise this and rightly reference it as an issue, among those the noble Baronesses, Lady Dacres, Lady Foster and Lady Bray, and the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Tunnicliffe.

Finally, where high-quality rail alternatives exist or can be developed, they should be promoted, as described by my noble friend Lord Russell. Eurostar’s potential to connect more of Britain to more of Europe is one such opportunity, not as a substitute for all aviation but as part of an intelligent and integrated transport framework that the Bill should sit within. The climate emergency means we cannot ignore this issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made clear. I very gently refer the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to recent research by Climate Outreach which suggested that her own party dramatically reduced its own references to the climate emergency in the local May elections. I am very happy to send the research on. The Liberal Democrats were much more explicit on that issue.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

What a pointless jibe.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

We will engage with the Bill at every stage, welcome its stated consumer protection goals, test its environmental safeguards, scrutinise its delegated powers and ensure that communities and passengers sit at the centre of whatever framework emerges. I look forward to the Minister’s response and a thorough Committee stage.

King’s Speech

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, why do we have five days of debate on the King’s Speech but no mention of the environment—it is not included in the issues to cover? I point out that the Conservative Government always put the environment down as an issue that should be debated, but here, Labour has failed, as it always does on the environment. In his speech, the King actually said:

“My Government will remain a leading advocate for tackling climate change”.


That is absolute nonsense. There are no plans in any of the Bills mentioned that will help the environment, help nature or help people to enjoy the environment.

According to the Natural History Museum’s Biodiversity Intactness Index, the UK ranks 189th out of 240 countries and territories for how intact its nature and biodiversity remain. Can a country truly claim to be a global climate leader while its own nature crumbles? Paul de Zylva, Friends of the Earth’s senior nature analyst, explained the gap between the UK’s green rhetoric and the grim reality of its biodiversity collapse. Just 53% of the UK’s original nature is left intact, which is far below the index’s safe limit of 90% and the global average of 79%. The United Kingdom has always prided itself on being a green and pleasant land, and a nation synonymous with rolling countryside, abundant wildlife and environmental stewardship, yet beneath this postcard-perfect image lies a startling reality: the UK is now one of the world’s most nature-depleted countries. As the 2030 deadline approaches, Britain’s natural wealth lies in ruins.

The UK Government track approximately 50 different biodiversity indicators, and the 2025 results paint a troubling picture. Indicators still heading in the wrong direction include the size of fish in the North Sea, the status of pollinating insects—that is bees, hoverflies and moths—and bird numbers on farmland and in woodlands. Perhaps the Minister can tell me the plans to move these figures in the right direction. I accept that we do not have an Environment Minister on the Front Bench, but perhaps I can have a letter explaining that.

Then there is the global threat. We have recently had a Ministry of Defence committee report headed by Lieutenant General Richard Nugee, a former senior British Army officer and a leading voice on climate and national security. He told us that the report clearly states that climate change is now a core national security threat. We have ice melting at a frantic rate in Greenland, an incoming record-breaking El Niño event and species going extinct faster than Labour voters. This all affects our safety.

It is obvious this Government do not really care about rural areas, the countryside, nature, our waterways and “all that green stuff”. They just see newts, hedgehogs and bats as annoying things that get in the way of their bulldozers. I wish this had been a King’s Speech designed to revive the country and help people, especially those living in poverty, but instead it is a set of policies they hope will stop Keir Starmer being evicted from No. 10.

Will any of these government policies deal with the endemic problem of corporate greed that forces up the cost of living and our tax bill, especially the fossil fuel companies that are greedily helping to destroy our planet? Will any of this legislation make fares cheaper by ensuring that the rolling stock of our railways is owned by us rather than rented? Will it become easier for people to leave their cars behind by opting for a superb public transport system—and please do not give me that guff about electric vehicles, because there is a cost to them as well?

Will the water industry be taken into public ownership or will bill payers continue to pay billions of pounds to support a business model that relies on pumping raw sewage into our rivers and on to our seashore? Will taxpayers continue to pay the bulk of the housing benefit budget to private landlords or will we start a mass building programme for council houses, so that the public’s money goes directly into providing well-built homes at reasonable rents, with green spaces that the residents can enjoy? I cannot see any of this happening.

If Labour is looking for a reset under a new leader then we really ought to start with rent controls. Our new Green Party mayors and council leaders want the power to set rents that work for people in their areas. Greens understand that the poorest in society need clean air and green space as much as the richest do.

In short—I am cutting my speech extremely short— this Government urgently need some tuition from climatologists and green economists. I would be very happy to put them in touch with the best.

Cyclists: Safety

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have great respect for the noble Lord’s views on this. He will know that, as the debate on the then Bus Services Bill went on, my ministerial colleague took decisive action to stop one particular design and review the standards. That is what we have to do, because there is not unlimited space on roads and pavements. We have to find a safe way for people to board buses, for disabled people to be able to navigate pavements, and for cyclists to cycle. We are doing our best at that. The noble Lord will know that we have put a lot of effort into floating bus stops, and that has not finished yet.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, does the Minister have any idea how to combat the negative view of cyclists from so many people here in your Lordships’ Chamber? Could we have some sort of educational programme to help them understand?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Self-education is not a bad thing sometimes. I know that the Mayor of London is making strong attempts to improve the behaviour of cyclists. It is a concern that people feel able to cycle through red lights and across zebra crossings when people are on them. It is dangerous not only for pedestrians, disabled people and other road users but for cyclists themselves. I am very pleased to see that the Mayor of London is running that campaign and I hope that other local highway authorities do so as well.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

104A: Schedule 5, page 138, line 33, after “vehicle” insert “, including those used for delivery services”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to ensure that providers of non-passenger micromobility vehicles referred to in this schedule also include those who provide these vehicles for delivery services.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for not being at Second Reading, but I care deeply about these issues. Amendments 104A and 105A seek to ensure that, when we talk about micromobility vehicles in this Bill, we do not inadvertently exclude those used for delivery services. These services are now a major and growing part of daily life, whether that is food delivered by bicycle, parcels carried by e-bikes or goods transported by small vans. These services are economically and socially important, but they also have a very real impact on our streets and pavements, which is already being felt.

For example, food delivery has nearly doubled since 2019—as have parcel deliveries by vans, albeit over a longer period—yet local authorities currently lack clear powers to manage how those services operate in public space, particularly where micromobility vehicles are concerned. The Government’s guidance on this Bill recognises that the regulatory framework may need to expand in future, for example to include e-scooters or pavement delivery devices if they begin to block pavements or disrupt shared space, but that future is already here. Local authorities and communities are experiencing these pressures today.

In Committee in the Commons, it was directly raised whether what are now Clause 23 and Schedule 5 could be broadened to cover delivery vehicles. The Minister acknowledged that similar vehicles are already causing problems on our streets and said that the issue would be taken away and considered. I would be grateful to hear the outcome of those considerations today. If we miss this opportunity now, it could be many years before Parliament returns to this topic. We need only look at pedicabs to see how long such delays can last. Transport for London first sought powers in 2005; even now, those powers are not fully in force.

With these amendments, any use of these powers would still require secondary legislation and, crucially, be entirely optional for local authorities. The intention is to ensure that councils can take action where problems arise. That flexibility matters. In city centres, licensing could be used to address issues such as illegal e-bikes, pavement obstruction, unsafe riding and polluting vans, which are now the largest source of air pollution in central London. In rural or sensitive areas, a different approach might be taken, such as permit systems to encourage consolidation of deliveries or to manage speeds on narrow rural lanes. There are also important issues around safety and workers’ rights. Research from University College London found that freelance delivery workers are three times more likely to feel pressured to take safety risks or dangerous risks compared with employed drivers. Giving local authorities the tools to shape how delivery services operate could help to address these concerns.

Ultimately, these amendments are about empowering local decision-making. They would ensure that delivery services using micromobility vehicles are not accidentally carved out of a framework that is designed precisely to manage competing demands on shared space. I hope that the Minister will accept them or, at the very least, give a clear assurance that delivery services will be brought within scope at the earliest possible opportunity. Without that, we risk leaving our local authorities powerless in the face of challenges that they are already struggling to manage. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. Amendments 108 and 109 would place stronger requirements on traffic authorities with regards to parking and docking, and Amendment 113 would expand the duty to co-operate to Great British Railways and other relevant bodies. I am grateful to the charity CoMoUK for its advice in this area.

This Bill is a welcome opportunity to start the long-overdue management and regulation of micromobility schemes and to reduce any negative impacts. Any noble Lord who has sat through many of the Committee days of the current police Bill will have heard arguments made and concerns expressed about bikes and scooters cluttering our pavements and about the lack of regulation—that is seen in the number of amendments today. This Bill is an opportunity to deal with these issues.

Amendments 108 and 109 would require traffic authorities to provide parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the right level. The proposed legal duty for highways authorities to merely “co-operate” with strategic authorities is weak. There is a risk that authorities will fail to provide sufficient parking spaces for micromobility vehicles. I understand that there are existing cases of the relevant authorities refusing to provide any bike-share parking space at all. This will limit the potential of micromobility to serve the public and will risk micromobility vehicles becoming a public inconvenience through inappropriate parking, as we currently see across our cities.

In addition to the duty to co-operate, it is important that traffic authorities have a duty to provide parking at sufficient densities, with density standards defined by the licensing regulations and guidance that this Bill outlines. Guidance should emphasise that, where possible, parking should be on the carriageway—perhaps replacing a private car parking space—strengthening the role of micromobility in the shift away from private car ownership and supporting the Government’s goals around active travel, clean air and climate.

I will expand on this a little more. It is important that the Bill gets parking right as, on the one hand, the planning of parking locations has a huge impact on how convenient shared micromobility is to use and therefore how much the public can benefit from it. On the other hand, as we hear regularly, poorly planned parking can be the source of so many problems, such as obstructing pavements, that this Bill aims to resolve.

As the Bill is currently written, the authority that gives out licences is not the authority responsible for parking, which creates that risk of mismatch between the number of bikes licensed and the quantity of parking available. These amendments aim to ensure that traffic authorities work in a co-ordinated way with licensing authorities to provide that appropriate level of parking. Density and quality standards outlined in guidance would support those traffic authorities to understand what is needed. If we do not tackle this tension, we will continue the chaos that we see on our pavements and streets, which benefits no one.

Amendment 113 would require Great British Railways, National Highways and other public bodies to co-operate with the licensing authority on micromobility vehicles and the connectivity with other modes of transport. The creation of Great British Railways in particular is a huge opportunity to integrate between rail and other forms of transport. Parking at stations for shared micromobility would make connections easier for passengers. Research that CoMoUK carried out showed that 21% of active bike-share users combine their most common bike-share trips with a train ride.

Similarly, having shared micromobility parking near bus stations improves the potential for interchange, while parking at or near NHS sites—hospitals and the like—and schools can improve access for those travelling for health, education or employment in a public service. Co-operation between bodies is essential to fully realise these benefits and to enable more people to choose active travel modes for more journeys.

An amendment tabled to one of my amendments suggests removing the word “sufficient”. This would leave a gap in the legislation that would allow an authority to say, “Well, we’ve provided one parking space, and that is enough for the micromobility in our borough or area”. So “sufficient” is a crucial word that would allow a proper assessment of need and demand and allow proper provision. I hope that the Minister has been looking into this and I look forward to his response with interest, particularly as these are such delicate issues on our highways.

--- Later in debate ---

With these reassurances, and with what I said earlier on the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I think there were some pilots of privately owned e-scooters. Have the results of those come through? Have they been published?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

To answer the noble Baroness’s question, the original pilot e-scooter experiments were started in the days of the previous Government and there were no results. This Government have extended both the number and the length of the pilots, so there will be some results in due course that relate to current circumstances rather than the circumstances of several years ago.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his answers to my concern about micromobility delivery vehicles. I think I heard the conditional in his words about them, so “could” rather than “would”. I will read Hansard very carefully and then come back to him, perhaps in a Corridor somewhere or on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 104A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I support entirely what the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have said.

I am slightly confused by a comparison between what the Department for Transport said in a press release on 8 January and what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said, which is that powers will be available when legislative time allows. He rightly pointed out that we do not know when that will happen. However, the press release on 8 January said:

“The department will set out guidance to help local authorities use these powers in a proportionate and locally appropriate way later in 2026”.


That implies to me that it can do what is proposed by setting out guidance and that we can be under way by 2026. However, the briefing we have all had from the trust implies that the Government will resist this amendment because they want to narrow the scope and there will be a place for it at a subsequent date. Exactly what is happening this year? If it is not all going to happen this year, what will happen this year? The press release certainly implies something:

“The department will set out guidance to help local authorities use these powers in a proportionate and locally appropriate way later in 2026”.


I am sure the Minister will be able to shed some light on this issue.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

That is really interesting, is it not? I am sure the Minister will tell us exactly what all that means.

I am one of those people who challenge people who park on the pavement. Just recently, I saw a huge van parked all the way across a pavement. I went up to challenge the driver and found that it was an ambulance, so I did back off because I thought somebody needed some help. I totally agree that pavement parking means that the kerbside degenerates; it gets broken, which means yet another hazard for all of us, not just for people who are not particularly mobile, at night and so on.

I hugely admire the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but he should not be parking on the pavement. I do not care that the road is too small. He should park in a legal place and walk the rest of the way. It would be really good for his heart. The thing about pavement parking is that, if your car is too wide to park on the road, your car is too wide. Get a smaller car—do not take up space that pedestrians need. I see no rationale or excuse for that. It is just plain rude, and I loathe it.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendment 238, as she cannot be here today. Local authorities currently have civil enforcement powers which enable council officers to enforce parking contraventions on the highway, such as parking on a bend, across a driveway or too close to a junction. They have the power to impose penalty charge notices. This Bill will enable these powers to be taken by a mayor, which in my noble friend’s opinion will result in a less accountable system as mayoral authorities are likely to have populations of around 1 million.

This amendment seeks to achieve a retention of civil enforcement powers by local authorities and, more importantly, contains a provision to extend the powers to other highway infringements such as speeding on local roads—those which are not A or B roads. I understand that in the past my noble friend looked to table a Motion in the ballot to enable local authorities to enforce speeding problems on residential roads, which had huge support from the Local Government Association, London Councils and many boroughs. That is why she tabled this amendment, so I hope the Minister can respond to that point.

We have had a really interesting discussion about Amendment 121A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. The noble Lord, Lord Young, made a really good point, to which I hope the Minister can respond. It is an anomaly. Outside London, while it is an offence to drive on the pavement, it is not a specific offence to park on a pavement in most instances. This amendment tries to resolve this.

We have had briefings, as the Committee has heard, from the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, and I have had a briefing from Guide Dogs about this issue. According to Guide Dogs, four in five blind or partially sighted people have said that pavement parking makes it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week and over 95% have been forced to walk in the road because of pavement parking, so, as we have heard, this is a serious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, refers to the fact that five years ago the Department for Transport conducted a consultation, and we had the results in on 8 January. I believe this is the legislative opportunity for the Government—that is, if they need one, and if they do not, I hope the Minister can clarify that—and it clearly has cross-party support. It is important that we look to resolve this anomaly as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name appears on two of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: Amendments 115A and 115B. However, I also subscribe to the principle of Amendment 116 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which was just discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do so because it is very important indeed that highways, or proposed highways, that constitute key route networks are both genuinely strategic and accepted as such by local councils and local authorities. As it stands, the Bill is unclear on where the powers around and responsibility for traffic management—and, indeed, for the allocation of resources—lie. It is important to clarify these matters in the Bill.

I want to ask the Minister two questions as clearly as I can. First, who will decide on the traffic calming measures proposed for residential roads? Will it be the local authority, the mayor or, in practice, a commissioner making recommendations to the mayor? Secondly, who will hold the budget for such measures? Will the money for the whole area of a strategic authority be transferred from Whitehall to the mayor, or will local authorities have their own budgets for such traffic management schemes? The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said a moment ago that it is important to clarify these matters in advance. I agree with him: it is absolutely essential that these matters are clarified in advance because mayors must not undermine the powers of local authorities.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, my name is attached in support of Amendment 18, but I did not ask for it to be. I asked for it to be attached to a different amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I think this is a great amendment anyway and I am fully in support.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s support. I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, cannot be here, and I wish him and his family well. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for speaking to his amendment.

My Amendment 18 in this group is on UK SAF production. I thank my noble friend Lady Pidgeon, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, even if it was the wrong amendment, for adding their support to it. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government’s support for sustainable aviation fuel translates into genuine homegrown industrial capacity, as we have heard. We support the Bill and its aims, and we want to see it move forward. Other countries are moving forward, such as the United States through its Inflation Reduction Act, and across Europe progress is being made. We need to act decisively to make sure that we do not become a passive importer, and we welcome that the Bill seeks to prevent that.

We believe that this reporting mechanism would help to strengthen the Bill to make sure that these issues are defined and reported on. There is an important distinction between manufacturing and simple operations such as blending, trading or storage. Too often, limited progress is repackaged as domestic production when it is not, so in this amendment we have sought to define what UK production means: that the main chemical or biological conversion processes take place here. We believe that clarity is essential, and having it is in the Government’s interests as well as ours. The amendment does not seek to tie the Secretary of State’s hands. It provides a clear framework for defining what counts as UK production. It also allows flexibility to set out more detailed rules by regulation on the extent of processing ownership and the evidence required for compliance, while maintaining robust accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

Together, these amendments would allow for an assessment of the impact of this legislation. I hope the Minister will look favourably on these amendments, which support greater transparency in this emerging area.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 15, which is absolutely vital. Every time I look at the Title of this Bill, I get irritated because there is no such thing as sustainable aviation fuel, and we really ought to accept that. Too often, we have these grand promises that are never backed up— I would argue that carbon capture and storage is another one. But if the Government are to press ahead with so-called sustainable aviation fuel, the very least we should expect is full transparency about what is being produced, where it is coming from and what the real impacts are. Reporting on UK sustainable fuel production would give Parliament the ability to see whether this industry is genuinely delivering any climate benefits or whether we are simply shifting emissions, land pressures and environmental harms elsewhere.

As one expert put it:

“We’re not about to start eating more chips, so we will have to start importing more waste oil”.


What if rising European demand for so-called waste oil is being met with virgin palm oil fraudulently passed off as waste? If that is happening—studies suggest it is—then any emissions savings vanish, replaced by deforestation for palm-oil plantations. Plus, most of our waste cooking oil is currently used in road transport fuels, so diverting it into aviation simply shifts emissions elsewhere and nothing actually shrinks.

Parliament should not be expected to take the Government’s optimism on trust. We need to see what is really happening, and Amendment 15 would provide at least a little transparency, accountability and a dose of realism—three things that are too often missing from aviation policy. If the Government believe that sustainable aviation fuel will play a meaningful role in decarbonising aviation, they should have no hesitation in reporting openly and regularly on its progress.

My Amendment 19A asks the Secretary of State to do something that should already be at the heart of a Bill such as this: to acknowledge that what we do here—what we incentivise, what we subsidise and what we label as sustainable—has real consequences for land, forests and communities here and far beyond our shores. Sustainability does not stop at the white cliffs of Dover. Protecting land over here while outsourcing environmental destruction over there is not sustainability; it is hypocrisy.

Supporting crop-based aviation fuels risks taking land away from food and from nature. It risks fuelling deforestation, especially in the global South, where communities are already living with the impacts of land grabs and ecological collapse. Yet this Bill encourages exactly that. We are using or talking about land as if it were an infinite resource, and it most definitely is not. Land is already under enormous pressure from farming, housing, biodiversity loss and climate breakdown. Turning that precious land over to growing crops for climate-destroying fuel makes absolutely no sense.

My amendment would require the Government to publish an assessment of how the revenue support mechanism for so-called sustainable aviation fuel is affecting land use internationally, including whether it is driving deforestation or other damaging land use change. Parliament deserves to know if we are simply shifting environmental harm on to other countries while congratulating ourselves on green progress.

Even if we overlook the land use impacts—and we should not—this Bill will not do anything to actually reduce air travel emissions. Sustainable aviation fuel, as described here, is at best a drop in the ocean—a rapidly rising ocean. A clever accounting trick will not cool the planet, nor will a marginal fuel switch deliver any sort of the emissions reductions we need. One analysis of sustainable fuels shows that carbon emission savings are almost entirely wiped out by the rising demand for air travel. As Professor Bill Rutherford of Imperial College said:

“The only way you can make aviation any more sustainable is to do less of it”.


Every hectare of land used to grow fuel crops risks locking us further into a system that protects the freedom of frequent flyers, rather than the future of the planet.

I apologise; I did not thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell —soon to be Baron—for his support for my amendment.

[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.

Walking, Wheeling and Cycling Paths

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that this is not the first time this subject has been raised in this House. A variety of actions need to be taken, including enforcement, which is of course the responsibility of chief police officers. But he will also note that, in the new Crime and Policing Bill, the Government are proposing new provisions intended to tackle the rare instances where a cyclist’s behaviour is so dangerous or careless that it results in the death or serious injury of another road user, and to treat that with the appropriate seriousness, in the same way as any other road user would be treated.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, is there a plan to put in new permitted development rights for cycle, wheel and walking routes? That could be done quite easily by changing existing regulations. Allowing these paths to go ahead is crucial for human health.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords—

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I was absolutely delighted to hear him remind the House that there is no spare planet. Quite honestly, the rate at which we humans are trashing our planet suggests that we actually do think we can go to Mars, or something spectacular like that, and still live a good life. However, I point out that if we destroy this very beautiful planet, or make it increasingly less beautiful and diverse, our lives will be utterly constrained as well.

I like to say something nice about the Government occasionally, if I possibly can. I noted the Minister’s statement at the start that this Bill aims for a greener, cleaner future for aviation. That is a very noble aim, but I am afraid it is impossible unless we radically rethink how we are going to deal with it.

About 25 years ago, when I was on the London Assembly, we assembly members and the mayor, then Ken Livingstone, had a presentation by Heathrow representatives. They promised—this is 25 years ago, remember—that Heathrow could become sustainable within a few years. They claimed it should be given permission to expand because it would soon be polluting less.

It took us a couple of years, but the mayor and the assembly soon realised that Heathrow had lied. It still lies about expansion and pollution. It lies about how important it is to the economy and about how much public subsidy it gets. The truth is that the aviation industry cares about profits, not the environment. You can no more have sustainable aviation than you can have a crocodile with a conscience; it just does not exist.

There is absolutely no techno fix for the pollution that aviation causes. The Royal Society worked out that to reach net zero for aviation fuel—is this what we are snappily calling “jet zero”?—we need at least half the UK’s agricultural land to grow the raw materials. That would be over two-thirds if farmers only grew rapeseed.

That means less wheat, barley and fodder for livestock. That also means higher prices for cereals and food. We already have food inflation due to floods in some areas and droughts in others. Last year, the 2025 UK harvest was the second worst on record. If the Government want farmers to grow jet fuel instead of food, prices in the shops are going to rise in order to keep the planes flying.

As we enter the era of climate crisis impacting on world food production, our country will have less farming land but will want more of it devoted to support the oxymoronic idea of sustainable aviation. In the past 25 years, the UK has lost 771,000 hectares of farmland, contributing to a 12% fall in food self-sufficiency. That decline is about to get worse with the disastrous planning Bill the Government have passed.

I love the effort going into expanding renewable energy and battery storage, but as the Climate Committee has pointed out, that does not stop aviation becoming the number one contributor to emissions in the next few decades.

This Government have lost all claim to be a green Government, with their attack on nature in Britain and their decision to expand aviation. The go-ahead for the expansion of London City Airport, Luton, Gatwick and Stansted means an extra 51 million passengers per annum. If the Government add Heathrow to that total, that is an extra 65 million passengers. If all those extra flights result in either extra emissions or extra farmland taken up growing jet fuel, that means rising fuel prices and more public subsidy.

Of course, the reality is that we will not switch two-thirds of our farming land to jet fuel. The whole Bill is greenwash, designed to provide political cover for aviation expansion and bigger profits. The real solutions are to tax private jets and the ultra-frequent flyers, to stop short-haul flights, and to make train journeys cheaper and more reliable. The solution is less flying, not this fiction of sustainable aviation.

A noble Lord mentioned “flight shaming”; I am not trying to do that. It is understandable that families want to go on holiday once a year, but as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, 70% of flights are taken by 15% of the population, which suggests that those people are grabbing their unfair share of the pollution that we can each expect to produce. Therefore, I ask the Minister: does he approve of making train journeys cheaper and more reliable, and putting a tax on private aircraft and frequent flyers?

I said to the owners of Heathrow 20 years ago—much to their annoyance, “If you want to show how environmental you are, then go ahead and fix the major problems of noise and air pollution and stop ruining the climate. Once you’ve done that, then, and only then, can we have a conversation about expansion of airports and of aviation”. I am so disappointed that this Government cannot see that. I recognise that they feel the need to explain that aviation can go on just as it has in the past, but that simply is not true.