Airport Expansion
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The sustainable aviation fuel mandate, which is already in force, seeks to reduce aviation emissions by up to 2.7 of a unit that I cannot describe—it is called MtCO2e, if anyone here knows what it is; I am sure someone does—in 2030 and by up to 6.3 in 2040. A lot of work is going on, and the House will shortly debate the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, which seeks to increase manufacturers’ sustainable aviation fuel. Together with the investment I already discussed for the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, this will all contribute to a future sustainable aviation industry.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
The Lib Dem Benches next.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what specific work are the Government undertaking to understand the emissions not only from aircraft but from the surface-access and freight traffic associated with airport expansion? How can the Government meet net-zero commitments while supporting airport expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Previous Questions in this House have dealt with the construction of the third runway in relation to carbon. The Government expect those two schemes, which are being taken forward, to demonstrate how carbon reduction applies not only to the construction of the runway itself but to the freight traffic and surface transport implications of the third runway. Those factors will be taken into account. There is no reason for the expansion of Gatwick—and, for that matter, of Stansted and Luton—to be incompatible with that of Heathrow. Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport and deserves to be of a size that can increase economic growth for the whole country.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(2 days, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to extend Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which I shall refer to as the POFA to save time. This will ensure that the recovery of unpaid parking charges on railway land is enforced consistently with other private car parks and has the relevant safeguards provided for users of those car parks, including an independent appeals service. It will also ensure consistency in the regimes applying in railway car parks across the railway network through the extension of this order to cover England and Wales.
Noble Lords will wish to know that, after the draft order was laid on 8 September, it was formally cleared by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its Thirty-fifth Report of Session 2024-26. Likewise, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee formally cleared the draft order as an instrument but named this amendment as an instrument of interest to the House in its 36th Report of Session 2024-26. Prior to this, my department had responded to preliminary inquiries from the committee’s clerk.
The background to the draft order is that railway operators currently use a combination of enforcement regimes to recover unpaid parking charges at railway station car parks, resulting in inconsistency and complexity for operators and passengers. Some operators rely on criminal enforcement set out in the Railway Byelaws, while others use agents who rely on contractual agreements with motorists. With the introduction of Great British Railways, my department expects a consistent level of service to be offered across the network to passengers. Therefore, the order will bring car parks located on railway land within England and Wales into the scope of the same civil enforcement regime that applies to all other car parks on private land.
Previously, railway station car parks were excluded from the POFA because they were subject to the Railway Byelaws, which meant unpaid parking charges could be enforced only under those by-laws. The POFA made a number of changes to the law related to parking on private land. It bans vehicle immobilisation and/or removal without lawful authority and provides private landholders with additional powers to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges, providing certain conditions are met. Schedule 4 to the POFA facilitates the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle parked in a private car park. It sets out detailed requirements regarding the provision of notices and the appeals process. However, as I have said, railway station car parks are currently excluded from this regime.
The change which this order enables will ensure a consistent civil enforcement regime for all railway station car parks across the future Great British Railways network. It will ensure that passengers have the same protection that they would have when parking in other car parks on private land, including access to an independent appeals service. An industry consultation showed support for amending the Railway Byelaws to remove criminal liability for parking breaches and instead using the civil enforcement regime set out under the POFA regime.
These changes will standardise the approach to the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle parked in railway station car parks. To support this order, changes to the Railway Byelaws will be made at the same time to remove the criminal enforcement regime which is currently in place and allow this amendment to take effect. This shift from the criminal enforcement regime to the civil regime provides passengers with an independent appeals service and allows the same framework to apply to railway station car parks as applies to all other private car parks.
I have highlighted the importance of this order to ensure that passengers have access to a consistent civil enforcement regime when recovering unpaid parking charges on railway land and an independent appeals service. I therefore beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I am pleased to speak in the debate about this amendment order. As the Minister has set out, the order amends the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to bring land subject to the Railway Byelaws within the definition of relevant land to facilitate the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle parked in a station car park. This will bring simplicity. It brings railway car parks into line with other car parks, which will allow private parking operators to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle rather than just the driver for unpaid parking charges, which has been an anomaly for some time.
The consultation on this matter was launched in 2020, so I ask the Minister why it has taken over five years for this small order to appear before the House. It seems uncontroversial, and over five years seems a long time. I know that signage costs were one concern raised in the consultation, but the background note explains that budget provisions have been made to cover this, so that should not be a reason for the delay.
In principle, we welcome this rather technical change and the fact that a consultation took place. However, as anyone who has been an MP or an elected member of a council or an assembly knows, parking and parking fines are always controversial. MPs and councillors receive much casework expressing frustrations and problems with many car parking operators and providers, who often lack transparency and are unaccountable; they can sometimes seem unreasonable. Clear and new signage that is accessible is welcome, but what is the timescale for implementing the new code for private car park operators, which has been consulted on recently?
The public need to have confidence in the overall regulatory framework covering private car parking providers to ensure they have greater transparency and consistency, that they are not being unfairly penalised and that they have that forum for appeals when things have gone wrong. Will the Minister ensure that resources are in place so that operators comply with the forthcoming code, particularly regarding signage, fair changes and independent appeals?
Finally, I understand the Government’s assessment that a statutory review of these regulations was judged disproportionate. However, will the Minister commit to revisiting that decision if there is evidence of unforeseen consequences for operators or users of the relevant land from this order? I await the Minister’s response with interest.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this instrument seeks to amend the Protection of Freedoms Act. The moment one sees a Labour Government fiddling with our freedoms, one is naturally anxious as to what they have in mind. That Act was one of the great achievements of the coalition Government—in fact, it was a Liberal Democrat-inspired achievement—from those happy days when the country was run by a quad of David, George, Nick and the red-headed guy, whoever that was, but now it is being amended, so one looks very carefully at what is proposed. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, it is much less dramatic than it might be and it is, in essence, to do with enforcement at railway station car parks.
However, I have some questions. I am interested in the thinking and timing behind this order, particularly in how it fits with the proposed architecture of the rail reform Bill, which was published for the first time last week and is, therefore, now available to us so that we can scrutinise the Government’s plans for railway reform.
The basic position is that car parks at railway stations are currently covered by railway by-laws. What is wrong with that? It turns out that the by-laws are unsatisfactory in some respects. So it was open to the Government to come to this House with a view to amending the railway by-laws that govern station car parks—keeping it all within the railway family, if you like—but that is not in fact what they have done. The Department for Transport has not taken us down that track; instead, it is, in effect, outsourcing the whole matter to an MHCLG code of conduct. How does that fit with our plans for a single directing mind for railway infrastructure?
The department is also doing this at a very strange time because, again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, pointed out, the Government are in the process of consulting on a new code for the private enforcement of car parking. I believe that the consultation closed only in September, which is very recently. Of course, it is too early for MHCLG to have finished its consideration of that consultation or to have issued its plans for the future, so we do not know what we are actually being invited to impose on drivers who are parking their vehicles in railway station car parks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, complained, quite rightly, that it has taken five years since the consultation was undertaken to bring this order forward. My complaint is that, now that it is coming forward, it is being done in a very rushed manner when, given where we are with the consultation on the code of conduct, it would be a great deal more sensible if the instrument were to wait until we knew what that code of conduct said. Indeed, one would have thought that the train operating companies currently being absorbed into the Department for Transport—that is, the train operating companies or Great British Railways, which is going to replace them—will want to know as much as I do about what the enforcement regime will look like, once the new code of practice is in place, before they relinquish their powers under statutory by-laws, which, as I understand it, the Minister can extinguish without reference to Parliament.
In general, if the Government want to do this, the Official Opposition will not stand in their way, I think, but this seems to me to be a very strange thing for the Government to want to do just at the time when they are putting in place a single directing mind covering all rail infrastructure—in effect, handing this over to a statutory structure that will be dominated by a parking code of practice which was issued by a different government department and which is not even available to us at the time when the Department for Transport is relinquishing these powers.
Heathrow Airport: Third Runway
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The launch of the Airports National Policy Statement review on 22 October is one of the significant steps that the Government are taking to support the expansion of Heathrow. The review has begun before final scheme selection to allow early policy and analytical work. Public consultation will, of course, take place. Round tables with key stakeholders will be held during the review and consultation phases. The further DCO process afterwards will include statutory consultation and public examination.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given the significant congestion already around Heathrow Airport and the impact on local communities, will the Government be making improved public transport access a condition of any plans for Heathrow expansion, in particular for southern and western rail links?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that, on Monday evening in this House, we discussed the Statement made in another place on Heathrow. She is right—I said so then, and I will say so again—that the public transport links to and from Heathrow must be a critical feature of any proposals put forward by any promoter. There are, as she mentions, schemes for southern and western access. The Elizabeth Line has significantly improved connectivity to the airport since it opened, and we await promoters’ proposals for public transport links to the airport.
Heathrow: National Airports Review
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Statement does two things: it announces a review of the Airports National Policy Statement, but gives us little idea in detail as to how it is to be revised, and it tells us that the only two credible proposals for Heathrow’s expansion are still being considered and that the more fanciful proposals have been dismissed. The two are linked because the core purpose of the current ANPS is to facilitate the expansion of Heathrow. In my view, the timing of the Statement is nakedly intended to persuade the OBR that the project is real and deliverable. I wish to test that.
First, there is the question of delivery of a revised ANPS, which I must say I think Ministers are rather reckless to embark on. The current Airports National Policy Statement was produced under the premiership of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead and expressly favoured the expansion of Heathrow. It survived scrutiny in the High Court and was appealed to the Court of Appeal by environmental groups on no fewer than 17 grounds of challenge and fell on a single one—the legal meaning of the word “policy”. On that arcane question the whole statement fell. By then, the Government were in the hands of Mr Johnson, who was perfectly content with that outcome. But Heathrow took up the cudgels, and the case went to the Supreme Court, which restored the ANPS.
The timeline tells its own story. In 2015, the Airports Commission recommended a third runway. In 2018, Parliament approved it by 415 votes to 119, yet only by December 2020 did the Supreme Court clear the legal path for Heathrow to proceed—five years ago. Now, in October 2025, Ministers tell us rather recklessly that the policy is going to be revised and accelerated and we are going to go through the whole process again, with all the potential challenges involved. It is a brave or reckless Government who set out on this course.
The Government have an answer to this. In the Statement, the Secretary of State says:
“On judicial reviews, we have announced that we will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects”.
At present, the average time for such reviews stands at roughly 1.4 years. What is the Government’s target? How long do the Government expect it to take for the new airports national policy statement to be approved? Remember, it is the Chancellor’s ambition that this runway should open in 2035, with spades in the ground many years before that, given how much muck has to be moved in order to embrace Heathrow’s plans. I am indeed making the simplifying assumption—it may not be true—that the Heathrow proposal is the one eventually chosen by the Government in November and not the alternative scheme. I may be wrong about that, but I think my assumption is reasonable and, for the moment, simplifying. That gives us five years.
Meanwhile, public debate on the whole thing has been minimal, because we have very little information about the proposals. The projected cost of Heathrow expansion stands at £49 billion. The market value of Heathrow Airport, which we know from the last time its shares traded last year, is around £9.5 billion, even though its regulated asset base is closer to £20 billion. People are willing to pay £9.5 billion for something which has a regulated asset base of £20 billion, and they are then proposing that, despite the fact that it is heavily leveraged, much more so than it was 10 years ago when it was discussing this project, we have to reckon with the fact that it wants to spend at least £49 billion—that is the publicly quoted figure; it may be more by now—on a third runway to increase capacity by 50%. My second question is whether this is credibly financeable and whether the Government believe that it is.
However, the airlines do not trust Heathrow, because they are expected to pay in advance off the regulated asset base. In fact, they are paying already, because the CAA has approved that some of the costs that Heathrow incurs can already be charged to the airlines and thus to the flying passengers. They think that because Heathrow is incentivised by the current regime to make its expenditure as high as possible, it is untrustworthy. They point to various things, such as a new baggage system completed in 2016, which was priced at £234 million but ended up costing £435 million, and a cargo tunnel with a budget of £44.9 million that ended up with an estimated cost of £197 million. They point, in contrast to Heathrow’s plan to spend £49 billion on a single runway, to terminals at Barcelona, Frankfurt, Madrid and Munich, that all cost half or less when taking the size of the terminals into account; the fact that Changi is expected to create a new terminal for £8 billion; and that New York’s JFK will open its new Terminal 1 in 2026, the centrepiece of a £15 billion transformation that will be completed by 2030.
What are the Government going to do about Heathrow and its regulatory structures? They say that they are going to change them. The Statement says:
“The Government will therefore work with the Civil Aviation Authority to review the framework for economic regulation for capacity expansion at Heathrow, ensuring the model provides strong incentives for cost-effective delivery”.
What has the Civil Aviation Authority, the regulator, been doing for the last 20 years in that case, if it has not been ensuring firm delivery? So my third question is: what are the Government going to do about that?
I plan to speak for eight minutes.
There is also the matter of noise, which I would like to pursue at some stage, but not at the moment. With that, I will sit down, but I believe that the Government have a lot to do to show that this project is credible, and that they are not contributing to its fast delivery by revising the airports national policy statement at this stage.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this debate on the review of the airports national policy statement and the Government’s announcement regarding Heathrow. But let me be very clear that the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that expansion of Heathrow would be a mistake from the Government and deliver a blow to our net-zero commitments.
A reliable and safe transport system is vital for economic prosperity in all parts of the country, and improving transport is essential to combat climate change and air pollution, but we must ensure that new infrastructure supports the UK’s climate targets. Analysis from the New Economics Foundation suggests that approving the expansion of Heathrow Airport would cancel out the climate benefit of the Government’s clean power plan within five years, and expansion of Gatwick and Luton Airports would cancel out the climate benefit of the CPP by 2050, so the Government’s sudden support for airport expansion just does not stack up.
Ed Miliband, speaking at the Environmental Audit Committee on 27 January this year, said:
“Any aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets … If it cannot be justified it will not go ahead”.
Will the Minister confirm that the four new tests—the evidence-led approach set out by the Secretary of State—will have to be met in their entirety before this Government will give the green light to Heathrow expansion? Will the Government publish the metrics for each of these four new tests so that there is transparency in the assessment? Will the Minister confirm that they will not proceed with Heathrow expansion if the Climate Change Committee advises that the plans do not meet legal obligations on climate change, including net-zero or air-quality obligations?
Let us look at noise pollution. It is a really big issue. Around 700,000 people are impacted currently by noise from Heathrow. It is not just those who are living in places such as Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Surrey—around the airport site. In places such as Lambeth and Southwark, residents have the clash of Heathrow flights and City Airport flights throughout the day, causing serious nuisance. The CAA workbook has highlighted that the number of those who are overflown could double to 1.5 million under some Heathrow expansion plans. Noise is an issue which many people feel has escaped any meaningful legal control for too long, leaving overflown communities exposed to excessive noise, impacting their health and quality of life. As part of this work, will the Government adopt the World Health Organization’s recommended noise levels to address noise pollution from the operations of Heathrow Airport?
I come to the point about surface access. While we do not want to see expansion and we do not believe it stacks up economically or environmentally, the last thing the area needs is an airport expansion plan that does not address and fund fully surface transport to the airport. It is a problem now and, therefore, higher modal share for public transport must be a foundation block for the Government’s assessment. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s commitment to fully funded surface transport access as part of this work? As part of the assessment of the two options, will the Government ensure that surface rail access, including the southern and western rail links, are an integral part? Will the Government consider the future of the premium Heathrow Express line as part of its surface access assessment, and when will this be published?
I pick up particularly these points around rail surface access because the letter from the Secretary of State in June stressed
“surface access mode share targets, including elements of a surface access strategy”
and went on to talk about it covering
“public transport, and active travel”.
Yet in the letter that was published last week, on 22 October, under the heading “Surface access”, it states:
“To minimise unnecessary disruption, please provide additional information regarding the construction of road schemes”.
Rail seems to have been downgraded. I really want some assurance from the Minister today.
In an attempt to demonstrate growth, the Government are misguided in thinking that an expanded Heathrow can deliver for the whole country. There are many other schemes that would deliver a lot more for communities across the country. We do not support Heathrow expansion and will closely monitor every stage of this process to ensure that local communities are heard loudly and clearly.
Open Access Rail Services
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am surprised that the noble Lord does not know the answer to that, as one of the many former Secretaries of State for Transport in the Chamber. The answer is that there are protected freight paths on all the main lines that are likely to carry freight, in order that freight operators can respond to short-term demand measures—which they do frequently, changing trains on a daily and weekly basis—and have room for expansion. It is important that they are left to do that. Otherwise, there is no chance of freight expansion and the commercial freight businesses would be damaged.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, under the new world of Great British Railways, will the Government allow existing open access operators to continue their current routes beyond the permissions granted by the ORR, even with a new charging regime?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness has a good point. The regulator necessarily needs to give a successful open access application sufficient time to recover the significant costs of rolling stock. Many of these arrangements run for at least 10 years, and it would not be right to curtail those activities. Serious investment has been carried out to allow them. What happens in the future we can debate during the passage of the railways Bill, but for the moment those open access operations that have 10-year or similar periodicity will continue.
Drink-Drive Limit
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Earl is certainly right that the Scottish Government changed the limit. I cannot confirm his analysis of the results. Of course, in determining a new road safety strategy, the Government will not only take evidence but look at what has happened as a consequence of different levels. Whatever he thinks the effect is—and it is a consequence of both penalties and enforcement—the Government will think carefully and act decisively.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, drug-driving, as well as drink-driving, is deadly. What work are the Government carrying out to look at international developments in roadside detection devices to collect evidence on wider drug misuse while driving, such as the inhalation of nitrous oxide?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a strong point. Drug-driving is as lethal as drink-driving. She will know that there has been some recent publicity about that particular method of drug-driving in London. I am confident that the police and enforcement authorities are working their way through that particular episode. The Government are looking carefully at all the methods of enforcement for driving under the influence of a variety of different drugs.
Great British Railways: Rolling Stock
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what work is under way to develop a rolling stock strategy for Great British Railways.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, my department is already working on a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, which will be the first for over 30 years, both to give certainty to the manufacturing and assembly market and to pursue modern standards of carbon-friendly traction and passenger comfort and accessibility.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the work that is under way. Establishing the right industry partnerships is essential to developing a more efficient and cost-effective British railway model. Can the Minister update the House on the current status of discussions with EUROFIMA and indicate when British operators might be able to leverage its financial support in the procurement of public service rolling stock?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, EUROFIMA is a long-established, supranational financial institution, established as a joint stock company by an international treaty, the convention, signed by 25 European member states. It is dedicated to financing public passenger railway rolling stock and related infrastructure, as well as the modernisation and renewing of related equipment. As part of developing the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, my department is exploring a range of financing structures to support investment in partnership with private finance. This includes active engagement with EUROFIMA to assess how its financing mechanisms could support future investment in the UK rolling stock market. If, following due diligence, EUROFIMA is considered an appropriate avenue to go down, then we would aim to accede by the end of 2026.
National Policy Statement for Ports
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this debate on the amended national policy statement for ports, the continuation of the presumption in favour of port development and the market-led approach based on demand. Some important points have been raised by noble Lords in this debate. I particularly support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about grid capacity for ports. It is an important issue.
A lot has happened since the previous statement was produced back in 2012 and designated under the Planning Act 2008. It is absolutely right that the Government are amending it at this time. Perhaps they should go further, as my colleague, my noble friend Lady Scott, mentioned. Overall, the amended national policy statement for ports is welcome. However, there are some clear opportunities to properly address short- comings in a number of areas.
Many in the sector feel strongly that the revised statement should reflect the industrial strategy underlining the role of ports as foundational to the UK economy and, crucially, affording ports critical national priority designation. If low-carbon energy projects and the energy NPS are granted critical national priority status, why not ports or port projects that directly support strategic national priority energy schemes? Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s thinking.
One concern that has been expressed to me is that ports are far more than just gateways through which freight volumes travel and that the statement could better support tonnage-light development, which still supports economic growth and jobs, such as renewable energy, cruise and logistics development, as other noble Lords mentioned.
A major concern is around port connectivity, which needs to be strengthened in the statement. Rail and, in some cases, road projects are needed to help move goods to and from ports. A stronger emphasis on transport connectivity would help support such developments, particularly in the link to rail freight, modal shift and the development of Great British Railways. The statement recognises that much of the tonnage is concentrated in a small number of ports, with the top 15 ports accounting for around 80% of the UK’s total traffic. This makes rail highly relevant, yet it does not feature strongly enough, as has already been highlighted by my noble friend Lady Scott.
The statement feels like a missed opportunity to advance decarbonisation and modal shift. Ports seem to be considered in isolation from the rest of the supply chain activity, yet they are among the largest generators of freight traffic. Ports should be used to drive change in the economy and the environment—therefore, I would have liked to have seen a greater focus on transport connectivity and onward rail transport links. Will this area be further reviewed by the Government?
The revised draft restates the position that there is a compelling need for additional port capacity over the next 30 years to respond to forecast growth in volumes for all commodity types, to support offshore energy and ensure competition and indeed resilience—something on which I am sure we all agree.
I must thank a number of organisations, which have briefed me on the key issues in the sector, including Midlands Connect, Associated British Ports and RenewableUK. One issue that came up time and time again is that the amended statement does not provide the greater certainty needed by the sector to meet the demand for floating offshore wind—FLOW. Ports are expected to play a pivotal role in transitioning to net zero and FLOW will need bespoke port facilities, as we have heard from other speakers. More focus is therefore needed on the future of FLOW development, as the UK does not currently have the required port infrastructure to develop industrial-scale FLOW development. The finalised statement should provide clarity to decision-makers in this area.
Can the Minister also update the Committee on what actions are being taken via the Crown Estate’s supply chain accelerator programme? As I have already mentioned, one key anomaly is that the nationally significant infrastructure project threshold for ports does not suit port infrastructure upgrades critical for offshore wind development. I ask the Government again to consider this type of infrastructure as a critical national priority, which would mirror the approach to offshore infrastructure and associated cabling.
I welcome that impact assessments need to be updated to reflect environmental legislation, as well as to introduce the concept of marine net gain. Given this ambition, what support will the Government provide to guide applicants through the range of plans that now exist for marine areas? Although it is outside the direct scope of the document, this policy has a crucial role in supporting regional and local port schemes that fall beneath the thresholds. To that end, and following points raised at the Commons Transport Committee, what will the Government do to ensure that the document is given due consideration by all planning authorities when considering future port schemes?
What consideration has been given to strengthening the monitoring measures, with a requirement for either annual parliamentary reporting or monitoring conducted by an independent body such as the OEP? One final question that remains is how this reads across to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently making its way through Parliament, in particular in areas such as environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy. Will this statement need updating again shortly? I await the Minister’s response to my questions with interest.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Baroness Pidgeon ExcerptsMonday 13th October 2025
(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Bus Services Act 2025 View all Bus Services Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 132-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (10 Oct 2025)
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his work on this Bill and for meeting me to discuss any concerns that may remain. We on these Benches are pleased to hear from the Government a commitment to a comprehensive review that will cover many of the issues that we discussed at earlier stages of this Bill and were the subject of many amendments to the Bill earlier in the year. These, we hope, will include the impact on SEN bus services, the £3 bus fare cap and the impact on villages and rural areas. The Government have already mentioned their published review of the £2 bus fare cap.
Within this group, for our Benches, the one key area remains the affordability of bus fares. We think the overall package of legislation in this Bill will help to transform bus services across the country and equip local transport authorities with a wide range of powers to deliver the right services to their local communities in the right way, but this needs to go hand in hand with affordable bus fares. The increase in the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 has created real barriers for passengers, particularly those on low incomes who rely on buses to go about their everyday lives. Budgets are tight for many families, forcing difficult choices between transport and other essentials. Bus fares outside cities such as London are very expensive. Without addressing fares, we think the Bill risks deepening existing inequalities and leaving many people isolated. This legislation is about improving bus services and enabling local authorities to have a choice about how local services are provided, but unless there are affordable bus fares, we think there is a hole in the plan.
The amendment that passed in this House on Report was about a review. It was not about providing a £2 bus fare scheme to support bus routes, particularly socially necessary routes, which are a lifeline for many villages and rural areas. The Motion in my name that we will get to would insert Amendment 8C into the Bill and ensure that the legislation contains a statutory commitment to the £2 bus fare scheme for socially necessary routes. It would require the Secretary of State to take all necessary steps to ensure that the £2 bus fare cap is maintained for passengers using socially necessary local services. We believe this is a far clearer amendment to the legislation, putting into action what we are committed to and ensuring a focus on the £2 bus fare cap by the Secretary of State. I hope Members on all sides of the House will see the merit in this provision to enhance further this bus legislation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and look forward to testing the opinion of the House on this later.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on this issue as the introducer of the £2 bus fare cap and the person who wrote the relevant sections of our manifesto, which committed to keep it for the duration of the Parliament and fund it, importantly, from savings that we were going to make in rail services. We do not spend enough time in this country talking about buses. Two and a half times more journeys are made by bus than by the national rail network. You would not know that from the national press, which is very London-centric on this subject, but in most parts of the country buses are critical, so I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
I shall say a word or two about my noble friend Lord Moylan’s purpose clause and his remarks on that. He talked about the Government trying to help their friends in local authorities. What is interesting about this legislation is that, if you look at what has happened to bus services, the real challenge, and one of the problems, is that what happened during the pandemic is that a significant number of people stopped using buses for rather obvious reasons and never returned. That caused a huge financial problem for the bus network and has caused lots of routes that were previously profitable not to be profitable. The thing that is missing in the legislation is that you can offer local authorities the powers to franchise services all you like, but unless the Treasury is going to give local authorities the money to pay for those bus services, all you do is take loss-making services that are being reduced by private sector operators or by local authorities that cannot pay for them, and the local authority ends up having to take them away because it has no ability to pay for them.
When this legislation gets on to the statute book, I will be interested to see whether the Government fund the powers to the level that you would have to in order to deliver an improvement to bus services. I suspect, given the dog’s breakfast the Chancellor is making of the economy and the fact that there is less rather than more money available for public services, that that is not going to happen, but we will see how that develops in the future. I think my noble friend Lord Moylan does not have to worry in one sense, because I do not think this cunning plan that the Government have implemented to help local authorities is going to help them at all.
Specifically on the cap, the Minister talked about the review of the £2 bus fare and said that it was not good value for money. What he missed out was that the Government decided, without having concluded the review of the £2 bus fare cap, to have a £3 bus fare cap, which suggests that they like the principle, but introduced it and picked a number without having done the review on the £2 bus fare cap in the first place. That demonstrates not sensible, evidence-based policy-making but a Treasury-driven “Let’s just reduce the cost of the policy and not look at the impact it was having”.
When I talked to bus companies, I found there were two issues relating to the bus fare cap that were important in driving up bus ridership. One was the obvious one, which is that it reduced the cost. Particularly in rural areas—as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords—where you often have to take a number of parts of a journey with a number of fares, it drove down the cost of those journeys. That is really important for people going to work or accessing education, so that had a big impact.
The other thing was the clarity and the consistency that it provided in communicating the level of bus fare to people, which had, I have to confess, a rather surprising impact. When talking to bus companies, I asked the question, “If we were to take this away, what would you do to your pricing structure?” What was interesting was that they all said having a round-number bus fare had a surprisingly powerful effect on their ability to market services to consumers, rather than people not knowing what a bus fare was going to be and a whole range of complexity. I think it needed a bit more time to bed in, and that is why I support a proper review having been carried out.
To go back to the point I made about funding, what we suggested—to take savings from the reforms that we were going to put in place for rail services and use some of that to fund the bus services—would have rebalanced where people chose to take their journeys. More people depend on bus services for important local journeys. Whether to access education, to access the health service or to access employment, far more people across the whole of the country use bus services to do that than use the rail network.
The Government have done the reverse. The first thing they did was come in and give railway drivers—some of the best-paid public servants—a pay rise and ask for nothing in return; they got no productivity improvements for the rail user. That money could have been spent on improving the quality of bus services across the country. That would have been the right decision, and it is the decision that we were going to make. When we do not see increases to funding for bus services—when we simply give local authorities the powers to franchise but with no money to deliver that—then people on all sides of your Lordships’ House will think that making savings in the rail network and putting the money into buses would have been the right decision. I am sorry the Government chose not to do so.
Baroness Pidgeon
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 8C instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“(5) The Secretary of State must take all necessary steps to ensure that the £2 bus fare cap is maintained for passengers using services that have been identified as socially necessary local services in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.””
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to firmly support my noble friend’s Motion 31A. I will not repeat the arguments made so forcefully by noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Morgan of Cotes on Report, but I would like to draw the House’s attention to the findings of the 2025 Girlguiding Girls’ Attitudes Survey, released since Report. It found that 56% of girls and young women surveyed between the ages of 11 and 21 felt unsafe taking public transport by themselves, and 31% avoided it altogether. It is totally unacceptable that women and girls do not feel safe on our public transport network, and it is vital that operators monitor assaults on buses. We need action, we need it urgently, and I will support my noble friend should he choose to divide the House tonight.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on Vision Zero, rightly put safety on buses at the heart of this Bill. Who can argue with the aim of zero fatalities on our roads and a culture in the bus industry of safety throughout? The Government’s clear response in taking this forward, including best practice internationally and the new road safety strategy—I think the Minister said it is the first since 2011—really does show action is taking place in this safety space. It is a great assurance to our Benches.
On collecting data on violence on the bus network, we are in absolutely no doubt about the Government’s commitment to this, especially given the awaited VAWG strategy. Given the clear acknowledgement that this data is already collected by the police across the country, and that this new strategy is due, we are satisfied that this concern is being properly addressed, so the amendment is not needed. What is needed is more resources for our police, but that is a debate for another day.
As this Bill seeks to improve bus services across the country, safety in every aspect will be key. We are pleased to hear the way forward to address safety outlined by the Minister.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I was depressed by the remarks of the Minister, but I have been depressed further into almost silence by the astonishing remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The complacency they both show on these two really important issues is staggering.
Since we last debated this, there has been an appalling crash at Victoria bus station, and what is going to change? Nothing. We will have a road safety strategy that will encompass all modes of transport by road, including foot, bicycle and whatever. That is a good thing, and we should have it, but for buses changes are needed in operator mentality and practice. We see no sign of those happening. They will not emerge from a strategy, but only if the Government say, “This is our objective and we will make this happen”. That is what the Minister is not saying. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, did not hear him not saying it clearly enough.
As for my noble friend Lord Moynihan and all this nonsense about what was discussed when, none of that matters. What matters is what my noble friend Lady Owen said—the actual experience of women and girls travelling on buses. They do not feel safe. The Government again come forward with astonishing complacency about this, saying that it is already being done and there is nothing to be added. It really is not good enough. If the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan choose to divide the House on these matters—I make the point clearly to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that that is their choice; I have known my noble friend for what must be nearly 50 years now, and he has never been my glove puppet during all that time—then we will support them, because we think these issues are very important.
Finally, as far as dark influence within the Labour Party is concerned, it is astonishing that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, should make his naive remarks on the day on which Mr Paul Holden’s book The Fraud is published, a tract dedicated to exposing the conspiracy behind the Starmer Government, the undeclared funding and the actions of Mr Morgan McSweeney in destroying Jeremy Corbyn and inserting Sir Keir Starmer as his substitute as leader of the Labour Party. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, is a byword for naive credulity among his colleagues, but I suggest that he should get hold of a copy of the book published today and sit down, perhaps this evening, with a stiff whisky by his hand so that he can prepare to anaesthetise himself against the shocks that will be revealed to him. Then he will realise what nonsense he has just said about my noble friend’s amendment.
Rail Fares
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to simplify rail fares for passengers.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the fragmented railway we inherited has a fares system that passengers neither understand nor trust. We are addressing this through delivering pay-as-you-go, with simpler fares in London and the south-east, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, and trialling digital pay-as-you-go in the east Midlands and Yorkshire. On long-distance routes, we are learning from the LNER trial to make long-distance fares easier to understand.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. While it is good to hear about initiatives in some parts of the country, passengers have faced rail fare increases year after year for an unreliable service. I therefore ask the Minister, when will passengers have simplified rail fares so they can be confident they are not being ripped off every time they catch a train?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that people are very uncertain about buying tickets and do not trust that they are getting the best value. The fares system has grown like Topsy over the last 30-odd years. There are 50 million fares in the British railway system and, in order to eat the elephant, we have to do it in pieces. We are starting; nobody has previously started. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, once said to me that he had tried to do it as Secretary of State and the system had not allowed him to make the progress he had hoped for. We are making progress, but it will take time. Meanwhile, the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act has enabled train operations to come back into public ownership. The noble Baroness will know, because she met the managing director of South Western Railway, that he inherited a fleet of 90 trains, 84 of which were in sidings. Today, 21 of them are in service. I think that that is progress.