Northern Powerhouse Rail

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the northern powerhouse initiative was launched in June 2014 by the then Chancellor George Osborne. Featuring new and significantly upgraded railway lines, it should be the region’s single biggest transport investment since the Industrial Revolution. Twelve years on, despite various promises by various Prime Ministers, all that seems to have happened so far is lots of talking and planning, but no concrete plans.

On these Benches, the Liberal Democrats fully support measures to grow our economy across every nation and every region. We are supporters of delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail and a new Liverpool to Manchester rail connection. But the only solid information in this Statement, as we have heard, is just over £1 billion be spent over the next four years planning what should be in the final plan, not on spades in the ground.

I absolutely accept that the previous Conservative Government failed to deliver infrastructure projects such as this and High Speed 2, but surely our northern towns and cities were hoping for so much more. Can the Minister confirm that while we can hope that there may be some upgrades to rail infrastructure at some point in the 2030s, there will be no new trains running on new tracks until 2045 at the earliest? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are not falling into the trap of the previous Government’s playbook of stop-start funding and delay on rail projects?

Safe, reliable and affordable railways are vital for employment, quality of life and economic growth. This is particularly true for the north of England, where the need for investment in infrastructure is clear. How will the Minister ensure that this major transport infrastructure project, no matter how welcome, secures the funding that is needed and does not go wildly over budget and end up years behind schedule? Will some clear strategic thinking by shadow Great British Railways be undertaken now to avoid costly feasibility studies being undertaken by other parties and to ensure a grip on the project?

Northern Powerhouse Rail, if delivered properly, will unlock growth, connect communities and boost employment opportunities. I hope the Minister can provide clear answers that help us all understand what is being promised in this Statement and when it will be delivered.

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

My Lords, the Statement by my honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place last Wednesday set out a practical and deliverable set of railway improvements in northern England related to an economic plan for the northern growth corridor across either side of the Pennines. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, have set out some of the more tangled history of Northern Powerhouse Rail over the past 10 years.

This Government are drawing a line under some uncosted and, frankly, undeliverable plans, of which Network North was the worst, although the Integrated Rail Plan for the North came near it, because there was a little bit of funding but it was not prioritised in any way. We are setting out a realistic plan for the delivery of a better railway for the north of England, which will include more frequent trains—so frequent that you do not need a timetable—more reliable trains, faster journey times and a mixture of using existing lines, upgrading existing lines and, as has been pointed out, a new railway between Liverpool and Manchester.

It is also phased. Noble Lords will note that, on the east side of the Pennines, improvements can come more quickly, because the upgrading will be to existing lines. The line across the Pennines is already being significantly upgraded: the trans-Pennine route upgrade has not so far been mentioned, but £11 billion-worth of railway improvements are being carried out now, with capacity, electrification, reliability and journey time improvements. The plan then sets out a new railway between Liverpool and Manchester, using the northern part of the stalled powers for HS2, which are languishing in Parliament at the moment, together with a new railway from Millington to Liverpool.

Thirdly, upgrades will be made later from Bradford to Manchester and Sheffield to Manchester. The Government believe that the plan, set out in that way, is much more deliverable and practical than any previous plan has been.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asks about abandoning a new railway across the Pennines. Yes, there will not be a new railway across the Pennines because, in effect, the trans-Pennine route upgrade will deliver what is virtually a new railway but on the existing alignment. He also asked about the proposition that, somehow, Northern Powerhouse Rail will not be effective without the delivery of HS2 to Manchester. He will note that one of the things in the Government’s plan and the Secretary of State’s Statement is the reservation of the existing purchase of land from Birmingham to Manchester, because more capacity—note that phrase; it is more capacity, not a high-speed line—is likely to be needed at some stage. It will therefore eventually complement the part of the HS2 alignment that will be used as a result of the new railway from Liverpool to Manchester.

The £1.1 billion-worth is in this spending review period, rather than to 2030, which was referred to last week. It will deliver some enhancements, too: for example, the cost of the new station in Bradford, subject to its business case, will be part of that £1.1 billion. We expect delivery to be well started, because the site is nearly agreed and the proposition is sound. We are also expecting improvements to Leeds station, which is a critical block to having more trains on either side of the Pennines, as a result of this expenditure. But it is true that a lot of that money will be spent on planning, because one of the lessons from HS2, to which this House will return fairly shortly, was the foolishness of starting to build a railway without specifying it and with contracts that make the contractors money whatever they are building and however long they take to build it.

The funding envelope of £45 billion is a very sensible proposition, bearing in mind the experience of HS2, by which government can limit the costs and give some budgetary pressure to those specifying the improvement. As the House will hear fairly soon, one of the difficulties with HS2 was the zealotry with which the original specification was written and the consequent enormous cost. We are not going to make that mistake. The last point of course is that the £45 billion is a sum to be spent after the end of this spending review, so the first part of it will be in this Government’s term.

The Government are working very hard to produce a practical programme of improvements that can be delivered by both the railway and its supply chain. I say to the noble Baroness that we do need to plan first; it is sensible to do that. She asked whether GBR would be involved. It will: very much so. One of the mistakes of HS2 was to regard it as a completely independent railway when, actually, it has to be regarded very much as part of the railway network, which is certainly what this Government envisage Northern Powerhouse Rail to be.

Buses: Safety and Security

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what work they are undertaking to ensure the safety and security of buses.

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

This Government are committed to ensuring that buses are safe and secure for all passengers and road users, and we expect the bus sector to uphold the highest possible safety standards. The Bus Services Act 2025 helps to deliver safer, more reliable and more accessible bus networks, and we have just published the new Road Safety Strategy, setting out the Government’s plan to make our roads significantly safer for everyone.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, given that there are around 700 Yutong electric buses in operation across our country and that concerns have been raised internationally that these buses can be stopped or made inoperable through remote interference from China, will the Government issue clear guidance for procurement of such electric buses, including new security requirements, such as firewalls, to prevent our buses being hacked?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My department and other parts of government are looking into the media reports on this from Norway, and the Secretary of State has already committed to updating the Transport Select Committee on this work as soon as we can. We cannot legally mandate that funding given as subsidy is used to purchase British-built buses, but where local authorities are running their own procurement to buy buses directly, they can design these exercises in a way that maximises the wider economic benefits offered by domestic suppliers. We also launched last year the UK bus manufacturing expert panel to support UK bus manufacturing. Through that, we are actively encouraging mayoral combined authorities—many of which will shortly procure bus fleets to support their new bus franchising programmes—to embed best-practice social-value criteria within their procurement.

Channel Tunnel Infrastructure: Reliability

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I share my noble friend’s concern about the disruption caused to travellers, in particular those whose holidays were spoiled or at least delayed. There is appropriate compensation made by Eurostar and Getlink, which are private companies, for that.

I take a particular interest in the noble Lord’s last point about ownership and proper maintenance, because there have previously been similar incidents and they do seem to take a long time. I am not sure that I can distinguish between incidents that take five hours on our side of the tunnel and, for instance, one last summer that took seven hours on the French side—but all that time is too long. My concern in this review, which is why I specifically mentioned the review of previous recommendations, is that it is not currently clear to me that all the previous recommendations for better maintenance, fewer incidents and for dealing with incidents when they occur have been followed through to completion by any of the parties that the noble Lord mentioned.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, while I welcome the review the Minister has mentioned, given that there is widespread support for increasing competition and international rail travel from the UK to other European destinations, what assurance can the Minister provide to passengers that the infrastructure is capable of running more services for both passengers and, indeed, freight in the future?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The review that I have talked about already will look at the resilience of the infrastructure and at previous recommendations to make sure that the infrastructure is resilient. Obviously, everything that we are talking about is certainly less than 40 years old, which, by railway standards, is like yesterday. There should be no reason—I cannot think of any good reason—why the infrastructure cannot support the much-increased level of service.

To that end, as the noble Baroness knows, the Government are committed to expanding the use of the tunnel for both passengers and freight trains. She will know that Virgin has been granted access to the depot in London, which it believes is necessary for its competitive activity with Eurostar. She will also know that Trenitalia, which is the Italian state railway, has found a funder to independently start additional competitive services with a depot in France, but not needing one in London. So, I am confident that all the infrastructure she mentions can support those services in the future.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

Clause 1(7) states:

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


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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

“a degree of flexibility is required”,

it regards

“the lack of specificity in the Bill”

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

“as a potential inhibitor of detailed legislative scrutiny”.

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

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on his forthcoming appointment as a life Peer.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises the correspondence from the Constitution Committee. I did in fact reply; the copy of my reply does not have a date on it, but I did reply because it has been reprinted. A full reply was sent to the Constitution Committee, and it referred to what we were just talking about—the current levy design consultation, concluding on 8 January 2026. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, says, without a levy we would not be able to deliver the revenue certainty mechanism. We continue to work closely with industry on the details of the levy’s operation. The current levy design consultation will conclude on 8 January 2026, before any levy regulations will be laid in Parliament. Final decisions on the levy design will be informed by this consultation.

It is appropriate that the levy provisions are set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State, so that there is flexibility to respond to changes in the sector. Flexibility is required so that the levy is set at the appropriate level to ensure that the RCM can be delivered effectively and the counterparty’s costs are recovered. The Government have set out the potential costs and benefits that may arise from the RCM scheme, including the levy and the cost-benefit analysis published in May 2025. The Government will actively monitor and control scheme costs, including through the setting of strike prices and by controlling the scale and number of contracts awarded. I assure noble Lords that the regulation under this clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there will be further opportunities for scrutiny as to how this power is used.

We have engaged with the Constitution Committee; I now have the date of my letter, which was sent on 17 November. Following this debate, I will ensure that copies of both the Constitution Committee’s letter to me and my reply are sent to all noble Lords who participate in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is on reporting and impact. My Amendment 15 might seem like a straightforward reporting amendment with a duty on the Secretary of State, but I believe it goes to the heart of what we are trying to do here. It will help to support the Government’s own commitment to help us to decarbonise our aviation sector, and to build a credible and sustainable fuel sector here in the United Kingdom.

Knowledge is power, and it is important that we know the impact of the legislation that we pass. It is important, with the revenue certainty mechanism, that we know how it is working in practice, that we have these reports, and that they are available to Parliament and to the public. This will also help to ensure that sufficient volumes of SAF are being produced to meet the mandate and to ensure the transparency of the monitoring mechanisms. The Government’s “jet zero” strategy recognises that SAF could deliver 32% of the emissions reductions needed by 2050, yet we have no consistent public data on how much SAF is already being produced, the types that will be developed, and where the bottlenecks might lie in the future system.

This amendment does what it says on the tin. It seeks to help answer some of those questions and to help the monitoring process. It would give Parliament and the public the evidence that they need to hold this policy to account. It would also help the sector to have confidence that the transition is coming, and that in turn would provide greater confidence for those who wish to invest in this sector. Reporting is a common requirement—we see it in the renewable energy sector, in the transport sector, and in the electric vehicle update—yet it is missing in this Bill. I believe it is important to put it in, and I do not believe that it would impose undue bureaucracy on the Government or their officials. Indeed, it would help to deliver clarity to everybody. That is all I want to say on the amendment: it speaks for itself.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. I support my noble friend Lady Pidgeon’s Amendments 16 and 17; I will let her speak to them. Amendment 19A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, calls for a report no later than three years after the day on which the Act is passed. That report will assess the impact of the revenue support mechanism for sustainable aviation fuel on deforestation outside the United Kingdom, and land use change outside the United Kingdom arising from the cultivation, harvesting or production of feedstocks for sustainable aviation fuel.

I am pleased to support Amendment 19A. It is sensible and essential to the Bill. Without proper monitoring, there is a risk that the UK’s incentives for SAF could inadvertently drive deforestation or damaging land use changes overseas, undermining our climate and biodiversity goals. By requiring the Government to report on international land use impacts, this provision would introduce transparency and accountability into the policy framework. It would help to ensure that the public subsidies truly create sustainable fuels and would help to drive us away from using feedstocks. This is a useful amendment. We cannot have our own decarbonisation at the expense of others. Therefore, it is important that these matters are monitored. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as we have been debating, this is an emerging field in terms of technology and production in the UK. That is why the Bill is here: to introduce the revenue certainty mechanism for the sector to help support its development and growth. Alongside this, it is important that we have transparency throughout the implementation of the Bill and about the reality in the sector. We have heard much the same from my noble friend Lord Russell and other noble Lords in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, following up on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the £1.50, I may be missing something, but if that is a cost to UK airlines for passengers leaving or arriving at UK airports, do we add that to a similar cost which might be applied by France, Germany or Timbuktu? They may have different costs in creating SAF, if they ever get round to doing it. The noble Lord mentioned cabbages. Well, if you are flying to Russia, you probably get lots of cheap cabbages there and you can turn those into SAF. I think we need to know what the total cost is going to be for this particular journey, whether it is £1.50 or £10 or whatever.

Sustainability is fine, but we had a Question today about the Drax power station and wood chips. If you look at some of the consultancy reports on how those wood chips are made, you will see that most of the trees seem to have many years of life left in them, but we do not worry about that, apparently. A bit more detail from my noble friend the Minister would certainly give me a bit of comfort.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I shall talk about Amendment 19 and the impact on airline tickets, which I think is really important. At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords raised the impact on passengers, and it goes to the whole theme of our discussion this evening, which has been about transparency at every level of the Bill.

We should talk, maybe outside the Chamber, about what sort of comprehensive report we could produce on the impact of this legislation, whether that is the direct impact on the passenger, through the price of their ticket, or in all these other areas we have been discussing today. There is a cost as we transition to the greater use of SAF through the revenue certainty mechanism, and it is really important that passengers and the whole industry understand the true cost of the Bill, so I will be interested in the Minister’s response to the points that have been raised.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

Walking, Wheeling and Cycling Paths

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to increase the number of walking, wheeling and cycling paths across the country.

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

My Lords, in the spending review, the Government allocated £616 million for Active Travel England from 2026 to 2030 to support local authorities to build and maintain walking and cycling infrastructure. Revenue funding details will follow very soon. This is in addition to the almost £300 million for 2025-26 we announced in February, which included £30 million for the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, formerly Sustrans, to deliver improvements to the national cycle network.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s Answer, but can I push him, as part of the Government’s strategy development, to mandate public rights of way for walking, wheeling and cycling alongside new railway lines, as well as improving existing railway active travel routes, transforming more disused railway lines into public rights of way?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Local highway authorities are responsible for public rights of way and are required to keep a rights of way improvement plan. Where opportunities exist to bring historical routes into use for walking, wheeling or cycling, local authorities must decide how to integrate them into their active travel networks. The Government have announced their intention to remove the 2031 cut-off date for recording unregistered historic rights of way so that routes can continue to be identified, protected and enjoyed. I think the noble Baroness will know that, in respect of new railway lines and particularly HS2, there are plans to use the line of route for walking and cycling paths.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his excellent maiden speech and his commitment to sustainability and rail, which is music to many of our ears in this House. I look forward to working with him in the months and years to come.

As we have heard today, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill aims to encourage investment in sustainable aviation fuel in the UK by creating a mechanism to guarantee a certain level of revenue. The Bill provides for a guaranteed strike price, guaranteeing price for a producer selling SAF over a defined period. The GSP will be funded via a levy on the aviation industry, specifically through a variable levy on all aviation fuel suppliers over a set period. This legislation should help the industry meet its requirements under the SAF mandate, introduced in January this year, which specifies that at least 10% of all jet fuel used in flights taking off from the UK from 2030 must be made with sustainable fuel, rising to 22% by 2040. This is clearly an area where the UK is trying to lead the way in decarbonising the aviation sector.

However, it should be noted that aviation, with all its benefits in connecting people and businesses, was responsible for almost 30 million tonnes of CO₂ in 2022, equivalent to about 7% of the UK’s total emissions. As I understand it, even as emissions from other sectors decline, aviation’s share is projected to rise to 16% by 2035. This is not compatible with our net-zero targets. Sustainable aviation fuel is not a silver bullet, but it is a step forward to help us in the challenging environment that other noble Lords have described.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome these steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. However, we see SAF as just the first step; we want it to offer a real low-carbon alternative. We believe that the Government should set out how they will go beyond securing investment in SAF and ensure that, longer term, this measure complements rather than detracts from investment in zero-carbon flight technology. We want to see greater innovation, research and development to make the UK the world leader in zero-carbon flight. SAF should be a springboard for that objective rather than a final destination, helping the UK transition to truly climate-friendly options such as battery-electric platforms and hydrogen-fuelled models as these technologies develop. There is a lack of clarity about what level of zero-carbon flight the Government are aiming for, if any, so perhaps the Minister can advise.

It is hard to square an objective of net-zero aviation by 2050 without measures alongside SAF to cut emissions and make climate-friendly flight a reality, and it is hard to look at the decarbonisation of fuel use in aviation while this Government seem intent on expanding airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow, to name just two, leading to many more flights.

There are a number of areas that we will be probing further in Committee. There are some concerns about the levy and the need to ensure that there are no loopholes, that progress is monitored and published and that we are aligned with our European and global neighbours or even ahead of them. Looking at international examples, the EU’s ReFuelEU aviation regulation requires a minimum blend of 2% SAF in 2025, rising to 70% by 2050; it focuses far more on both fuel suppliers and airlines; and, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, it is considering its own revenue support mechanism. Singapore and Thailand’s mandates started a 1% blend in 2026. Japan and South Korea are considering mandates starting some way off, in 2027 and 2030. In China, there is a SAF mandate at 2% that increases to 15% by 2030. Elsewhere, India and Brazil are considering SAF mandates. In the US, while there is no mandate, there is government support, as we have heard, to boost production, in the form of tax credits and other incentives. While there is no consensus on the route map for sustainable aviation fuel and how to support its growth, in developing this mechanism, what international examples have the Government considered to help shape their approach and the Bill before us today?

The levy on fuel producers is not necessarily the wrong approach, but key details are missing and could have unintended consequences if regulations are poorly designed. Leaving the mechanism to be determined later provides useful flexibility for a new and emerging industry. However, assurances are needed on how the mechanism will be designed. One issue that has been raised by industry and by other noble Lords today is that the levy is based on historical market share, which could cause problems. It is not clear if new market entrants might avoid paying the levy if they have no prior market share. Perhaps the Minister can clarify.

Another important issue I have picked up from talking to producers such as Neste is that, although industry in general supports the creation of a revenue certainty mechanism as a means to strengthen investor confidence and unlock the significant investments required for SAF production, there is concern that a level playing field would be guaranteed internationally. There is a strong feeling that revenues of the levy should not be used to support production of SAF that is subsequently exported. This should be about developing and supporting our own UK industry and needs. The levy should be focused on ensuring SAF supply at an affordable price within the UK. Since the UK and EU SAF mandates, I understand that we have seen an increase in the cost of SAF. This mechanism should help with the supply of SAF within the UK and help to ensure a stable price.

I have also been talking to operators that use SAF, for example DHL. In 2024, DHL used 73,000 tonnes of SAF in its own fleet, which is 3.5% of their total fuel share. This is in addition to investing in its fleet to decarbonise and in its ground-handling equipment to move to fully electric. We need to ensure that all operators are looking to decarbonise their whole operations and are not just relying on SAF to tick the green box, in effect.

A final issue that has come up in discussions and been raised by many noble Lords today, including my noble friend Lord Russell, is a concern that the levy will filter down and potentially cost passengers and airlines significantly. Can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have carried out and assure the House that passengers will not be significantly penalised? The combination of a long-term mandate and the proposed revenue support mechanism clearly offers a high degree of regulatory certainty, which is crucial for attracting the significant capital investment needed for SAF production in the UK. I hope the Minister can reassure us on the important points raised today and as we move forward to Committee.

South Western Railway

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I do not need to join the noble Lord on his service, because I am on my own, from Richmond to Vauxhall. It is true that there are some short forms—the result of both the driver shortage and the failure to put the new trains into service. Those are linked, because it is clear that the previous management did not choose to put the trains into service because they would have had to train the drivers. There are 780 drivers to be trained on those trains, and getting them into service means withdrawing 20, 30 or 40 of them from what they do normally. Meanwhile, the trains that are used are falling to pieces. Those are the old red ones, as anybody who has travelled on them will know, and they are best used in their last journey to the scrapyard in Newport, South Wales. They will be gone by December. It takes time to fix things. They were not being fixed under the previous regime, and they are now.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I acknowledge that there have been serious infrastructure issues, some natural and some legacy, but that does not take away from the poor service provided on the longer-distance services. When will passengers on South Western services be able to buy a cup of tea on board, and to reserve seats for their journeys, which is what many would consider to be a basic standard?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is referring to the London to Exeter service, which has not been very good in recent months, although the timetable will be reinstated from 29 November. That is because there was a serious problem with soil moisture deficit, as we have had the driest spring since 1836—and that was not due to public ownership. She also refers to the refreshment trolleys. She may know that I have asked the managing director to see what he can do to put back the refreshment trolleys, which were withdrawn some time under previous Governments—after Covid, I think.

Road Injuries and Deaths

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, clearly our thoughts are with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and his family, for the sad loss he outlined in his question. As we heard, over 1,600 people die and around 30,000 more are seriously injured on UK roads every year, but this is not inevitable and we should not accept it as inevitable. As the Government develop their new road safety strategy, will they be guided by the internationally recognised safe system principles, which are grounded in harm reduction?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that that international system is a good guide. We recently discussed it in this House during the passage of what is now the Bus Services Act. I can confirm that the Government intend to use that guidance, because it is internationally recognised and successful.

Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to simplify marine equipment legislation by consolidating and combining regulatory changes into one piece of legislation, providing greater clarity for industry. The regulations also bring the standards and requirements for ballast water management systems within scope, introduce a new “equivalents” provision and remove government ships from the scope of the legislative regime. Noble Lords will wish to know that the draft regulations have been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; no response has been received from either committee.

In line with international requirements for ships to carry safety and counterpollution equipment—collectively referred to as “marine equipment”—that has been approved by the ship’s flag administration, the UK implemented the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016, which gave effect to the EU directive on marine equipment. Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, the 2016 regulations were amended in 2019 to ensure that they would continue to operate effectively. Amendments were also made by the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) (Amendment) (UK and US Mutual Recognition Agreement) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which gave effect to the UK-US mutual recognition agreement on marine equipment by providing for the mutual recognition of certificates of conformity for designated marine equipment, thus opening up the large US market to UK manufacturers.

These proposed regulations will revoke and replace the 2016 regulations and both sets of 2019 amending regulations. The proposed regulations, which are considered non-controversial, set out the United Kingdom conformity assessment system for marine equipment placed on ships registered in the United Kingdom.

Since the UK’s departure from the European Union, numerous engagements have been undertaken with stakeholders, including UK-approved bodies, which are responsible for the approval of marine equipment, manufacturers, other government departments and maritime trade organisations. These provided an opportunity to influence the direction that the policy has taken. Once the policy direction had been developed, a six-week public consultation was carried out, during which responders expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the MCA—published a consultation report, including responses to comments received.

The proposed regulations also make other changes. First, they bring the approval of ballast water management systems into scope. In 2022, the UK implemented new International Maritime Organization requirements and standards for ballast water management systems through the Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022. These regulations included the approval requirements for those systems. Bringing ballast water management systems within the scope of the proposed regulations will make it easier for industry to find and adhere to the relevant requirements. It will also prevent divergence in the approval processes between these systems and other items of marine equipment.

Secondly, the regulations introduce an equivalence provision to allow, subject to certain conditions, non-UK approved marine equipment to be placed on board UK vessels in situations where UK-approved items are unavailable or unsuitable. The conditions ensure that the equipment, when placed on board, will provide an equivalent level of safety.

Thirdly, the regulations will remove government ships from the scope of the marine equipment regime. This is due to the broader change in approach to government ships, triggered in part by the limited legislative powers available post our exit from the European Union. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and in the absence of appropriate powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the existing instrument is being revoked using the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. This will facilitate the amendment of these regulations in future, if required.

In conclusion, I have set out the purpose and scope of these regulations, which consolidate and simplify the UK’s marine equipment regime, bringing clarity and confidence to the industry. The regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards while tailoring the legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU exit context. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as has been set out, this instrument aims to simplify marine equipment regulations and provide clarity for industry. I am grateful for the briefing from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency earlier this week. Conventions require ships to carry safety equipment and counter-pollution equipment, which will meet certain standards. As we have heard, through the 2016 regulations, which were amended in 2019 following our exit from the EU, this SI will consolidate those regulations into a single instrument, which we support. They also concern the removal of government ships—that was clarified to me earlier this week—which are covered by defence maritime regulations.

However, I will raise the process and the time taken to get to what we are considering today. Having read the comments of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee regarding the related Merchant Shipping (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which I am sure will be before the House soon, the timing of these regulations—on which the committee did not comment specifically—needs further explanation. Can the Minister confirm when the consultation on today’s regulations took place? Why have these two sets of regulations not come at the same time, given that they are both about consolidation and review? When can we expect the replacement fees regulations to be introduced?

Given that we were here only last week looking at the instrument on railway car parks, which seemed to take an awfully long time to get here—over five years had passed since the consultation on the matter—and the regulations before us today were last updated some six years ago, what assurance can the Minister provide that the department will start to work at pace through a lot of the administration around these regulations, to ensure more timely consideration by this Committee? I await the Minister’s response with interest.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a briefing for me by members of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Department for Transport, which was extremely helpful. The issues underlying this wholly uncontroversial instrument were debated in the other place, and the official Conservative view in support of the instrument was made clear there. It is very rare that one has the opportunity with any Government, least of all this one, to be able to say, “Well done. Carry on”, but that is my message.

Airport Expansion

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords—

[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.