Rail Fares

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think the noble and learned Baroness is referring to the Salisbury to Exeter line, which has a long history. It was built cheaply to compete with Great Western Railway. The cuttings are steep and the tunnel portals are surrounded by earth, but, sadly, this summer journey times have been extended due to soil moisture deficit, which is a modern problem. The management of SWR has every intention of getting back to the normal timetable, but they must operate the railway safely in the meantime. I would be very happy to introduce the noble and learned Baroness to the new managing director, so he can explain that to her himself, because he is responsible for both its operations and its infrastructure.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, discount railcards such as the senior railcard can be an expensive lump sum for many people. Is the Minister looking at proposals for some kind of loyalty card to encourage people more widely to choose the railway for their journeys?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

53A: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Whistleblowing and oversight body for nationally significant infrastructure projects(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, by regulations establish an independent body for the purpose of receiving and investigating protected disclosures in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects.(2) The body must have responsibility for—(a) receiving disclosures of information from individuals or organisations relating to suspected misconduct, mismanagement, breach of environmental regulations, or any other matter of public interest connected to nationally significant infrastructure projects;(b) assessing whether such disclosures fall within its remit and merit investigation;(c) undertaking investigations where appropriate and referring matters to relevant regulatory, law enforcement, or oversight bodies; (d) providing advice and guidance to individuals considering making protected disclosures in relation to such projects;(e) reporting to the Secretary of State on the nature, volume, and outcome of disclosures received, with appropriate protections for confidentiality and whistleblower anonymity;(f) establishing and maintaining a framework setting out the protections afforded to whistleblowers, including remedies for individuals who suffer detriment as a result of making a disclosure, and procedures for seeking redress.(3) For the purposes of this section, “protected disclosures” are those that meet the conditions set out in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (disclosures qualifying for protection), as they relate to the planning, development, or operation of nationally significant infrastructure projects.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about—(a) the governance structure of the body;(b) the process and criteria for assessing disclosures;(c) collaboration between the body and other statutory regulators or planning authorities.(5) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent body to receive and investigate whistleblowing disclosures relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects, including responsibilities for oversight, guidance, referral, and protections for whistleblowers.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 53A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley, who is unable to be here today. This Bill is part of the Government’s programme to unleash new infrastructure projects across sectors and in every part of the country. It is a vital part of the strategy for growth. Such projects are hugely costly and complex and contain many uncertainties, especially in their early stages. Many of them will involve public investment or have a major impact on ordinary people, which means that integrity and transparency are vital if we are not to waste money, undermine public trust and fail to get the outcomes we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 53A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, seeks to insert a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent body to receive and investigate whistleblowing disclosures relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects, including responsibilities for oversight and protections for whistleblowers.

The NSIP regime is responsible for delivering consenting decisions on the most complex and critical infrastructure projects. The framework, underpinned by the Planning Act 2008, is based on principles of fairness and transparency. As noble Lords have heard throughout the debates on the Bill so far, it is vital that the Government’s decisions on major infrastructure projects are properly informed by relevant expert bodies, as well as those who are affected by the application, including landowners, local authorities and local communities. That is what the Planning Act and NSIP regime enables.

This planning process includes the transparent appointment of an examining authority, which has six months to consider the views of members of the public, local authorities and other interested parties as part of the examination of an application. It also involves interested parties such as regulators, including the Environment Agency and Natural England, in examinations, and enables them to outline any concerns they have. Ultimately, based on evidence and the legal framework, the Secretary of State has the ability to grant or refuse consent for the development consent order, and must prepare and publicise a statement of reasons for their decision. Finally, the lawfulness of decisions can be challenged in the courts.

While I have been interested to hear the noble Baroness’s views today, I am afraid that I do not share the view that whistleblowing is a widespread issue within the NSIP regime or that there is currently sufficient evidence to warrant action. More broadly, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has long called for the introduction of an office of the whistleblower to centralise and triage disclosures, enforce standards and provide advice and support to those considering making a disclosure of information. However, the Government do not support the establishment of an office of the whistleblower at this time. Such a step would introduce a significant structural change to the whistleblowing legal framework, which the Government believe should be considered as part of a broader assessment of the operation of the framework. I also do not agree that this is something which should be tackled through this Bill.

The Government are keen to work with organisations and individuals who have ideas on how to further strengthen the whistleblowing framework. Our first priority is the Employment Rights Bill, which delivers on our commitment to strengthen protections for whistleblowers who report sexual harassment at work. I do not think the fact that they are not NSIPs is the best argument to make, given that they are so evocative. It is a really important issue to discuss here, with the relevant focus. No examples were given by the noble Baroness that would give consent to the NSIP regime or go through the system. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to beg leave to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am obviously not encouraged by the government response. It seems a weakness not to recognise how essential it is that there is transparency in major infrastructure projects, for the sake of everybody involved—but I was very encouraged by the comments across the Floor. I am not precious about how whistleblowing is structured, except that the channel needs to be genuinely perceived as being independent and having the power to protect whistleblowers, making sure that investigation follows where necessary.

I will make two comments. First, on grievances, part of the reason for having an expert body is that it will be expert at identifying the truth. Sometimes under a grievance there is real truth that matters, but there can be mischievous reporting. Whistleblowing expertise is very good at quickly winnowing that out, because obviously that is not where you are going to focus your time, energy and effort, and you want to make sure that it is stropped in its tracks. But we know from experience across the globe that that is very well managed.

Secondly, on the issue of changing the culture—that is what they used to say in the United States, until offices of whistleblowing were introduced widely across the financial sector and are now being picked up by the Department of Transportation. That may change with the Trump Administration, but you are seeing them picked up across other areas in the United States, because having an Office of the Whistleblower with the appropriate kind of powers has had a dramatic impact on the culture. There has been a sharp drop in bad actors, because people know that they are not safe. There is no greater deterrent than knowing that somebody will speak out, and it very much changes the whole culture within an industry.

It is also important to recognise that, with a good whistleblowing system, you get information very early—it is the canary in the mine. Therefore, in the case of the Elizabeth line, you know very early on that something is going wrong when you have scope to act, correct and manage. It is truly an important mechanism to save a project as well as protect the public.

I am fascinated that this argument is beginning to get widespread recognition and traction. I am totally supportive of a great deal of new infrastructure across the UK, so let me suggest that we must have with it a mechanism that means that disclosure and transparency happen at the earliest possible moment when things go wrong and before they turn into project-destroying phenomena.

Amendment 53A withdrawn.

Commercial Vehicles: Safety

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There is only one person here who holds a passenger-carrying vehicle licence, which is a broadly similar experience, although the payload complains more often than it does with a commercial vehicle. The noble Earl’s question has nothing to do with commercial vehicles at all. This matter is frequently debated in here, and I will leave it to the Leader of the House to answer that properly.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister enlighten me as to how many people were killed last year—or the latest date that he has—on the roads by HGVs? I have the numbers for 1929.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

The 2019 numbers! I have been here too long. There were 178 road users and 82 vulnerable road users. Surely he needs to bring in the protections that my noble friend described, ahead of waiting for some strategy, because people are dying on the roads daily.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I have those statistics somewhere and I have up-to-date ones. I will send them to her. Many of the 19 new vehicle technologies are already being applied, because the commercial vehicle industry is international. I also referred to this being under really active consideration, which means that shortly we will be able to say which of the 19 technologies this Government propose to introduce. When we do, that will be conclusive.

Airport Expansion

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

As soon as the noble Lord got up, I was reminded that he was one of the principal promoters of the Thames estuary airport. That was a good, innovative and brave proposal, but would have cost the country far more than the figures he is quoting for the expansion of Heathrow. We have to wait for the proposals from Heathrow, or any other promoter, for the third runway and see what they look like. We can then see what the application for a DCO actually consists of, how much it is said to cost and what else needs to be done in order to achieve it. That will clearly be work in progress, considering that a proposal is expected only early in the summer.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Government—the Minister referred to this a moment ago—based their pronouncements on Heathrow on a report by Frontier Economics, but I recognise the key graph. It looks like a forecast for high demand for air travel, which is then met by Heathrow runway 3, but it is actually a graph of how much more air travel could be induced by runway 3 if a company applied an aggressive marketing strategy. How does a strategy based on inducing more air travel fit with the Government’s statements on climate change?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The next process is that the Government are committed to reviewing the Airports National Policy Statement, which is a government action. Then, as I say, this summer we will receive proposals from Heathrow, or from any other promoter, about a third runway, followed by an application for a development consent order. The matters that the noble Baroness refers to will no doubt be set out in Heathrow’s proposals and those of any other promoter, and then set out in detail in the DCO. We have to wait until then to see what they say about the demand, how it should be paid for—which was the subject of the previous question—and the Government’s view about what it will do for the economy.

Airport Expansion

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is very familiar with the processes that have been gone through so far. The answer to that question is that it really depends on what is submitted by the promoter this summer. We all know that there was a proposal for a third runway in the north-eastern quadrant of the airport. To start with, it depends very largely on whether that submission is very similar to the one the promoter made previously or if there is something substantially different.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, in 2014, the cost estimate just to build the Heathrow third runway was £18 billion, to be paid for in the end by higher fees on the airlines. British Airways was clear that it would not pay. In addition, Transport for London costed the upgrade to local transport as between £15 billion to £20 billion, of which the airport offered to pay £1 billion—the rest was to fall on London businesses and TfL. That project failed because the business case is completely ludicrous. Will the Minister now update us on the range of costings and, more importantly, who will pay?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The costs of a third runway depend, of course, on the proposals of the promoter to deliver it. Without that proposition, we cannot usefully have a debate about how much it might cost, but my earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, stands about the cost of the runway itself. The only other thing I point out to the noble Baroness is that, since 2014, the Elizabeth line has opened, and a significant amount of extra railway capacity has already been provided to Heathrow Airport.