Railways Bill
Baroness Pidgeon ExcerptsTuesday 8th September 2026
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 25-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (8 Sep 2026)
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I want briefly to reflect on the various amendments that noble Lords have put forward so far this afternoon. Basically, it makes me feel very concerned, because we are lacking information, as the noble Lord said on Amendment 8 but also on many of the other ones, and we do not know what is going to happen. We do not really know who will be running infrastructure or some of the train operators and, if we ever end up with any private sector involvement, I go back to what I experienced when I was on the kind of supervisory board of Railtrack a long time ago. We used to meet every three months with the board, and you could just see that the debt that Railtrack was incurring was getting bigger and bigger. In the end, I said to the chairman, “How long are the Government going to allow you to continue with this debt?” It seemed to increase by 10% or 15% every time we had a meeting. The chairman’s response was, “Well, don’t worry, I had a meeting with the Secretary of State”—none of the former Secretaries of State are here today, so I think I am safe to say this—“and he said it will be all right”. We had a nice meal and it was fine. But the sad thing was that, within a week, not only had he got the sack, but Network Rail was closed down, because the so-called shareholders did not know what they were doing. It was yet one of the many disasters that the infrastructure manager has probably suffered over the last 30 or 40 years.
It would help me and maybe other colleagues to think of some useful criteria as to whether we think all these different elements that we will be discussing in the next seven days will be beneficial or not. What I found rather interesting was a part of a speech by the Secretary of State, Heidi Alexander, on what she saw coming from the nationalisation plan. She that it,
“requires a high performing railway to … support the creation of new jobs and new homes … improve reliability, generate better usage of our trains and reduce public subsidy”.
We can spend a lot of time talking about whether this has happened in the last year or two. If it has not, what has gone wrong? It is much too soon to see what is changing. We should in mind that, in the last three or four years, most of the passenger operators have been effectively controlled by the Department for Transport, even though they are in theory in the private sector. Network Rail, of course, is funded by the Department for Transport anyway. This is something that we need to look at, in going through all the amendments and seeing whether they will meet any of those criteria. Maybe my noble friend, when he responds, will be able to say, “I have got it completely wrong and it is all going to happen anyway”. I look forward to his comments.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for numerous meetings with me and many of my colleagues over the last few months; they have been very helpful for discussing how we can improve the Bill before us.
The dislike for this Bill was very apparent in the opening words from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The previous Government could have implemented the concession model that has been mentioned several times—it would be our preferred option—but they did not. The picture that we had painted by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, of the privatised railway does not reflect many passengers’ experience in recent years. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that I think the service started to decline before the pandemic, but the pandemic accelerated the fact that this model was not working.
The Government have a mandate for public ownership. In fact, two years ago, we debated the Act on it. I hope that we can focus in these seven days on getting the structure right and delivering for passengers, rather than revisiting the ideology behind what the Government are doing.
The amendments in this group are quite technical in some ways, and they are about the structure rather than focused on passengers. But it is important that we hear from the Government exactly why they have chosen the model that they have. The noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Lansley, in their amendments are seeking some clarity on the exact set up of Great British Railways and why this model has been chosen. It is really important to get some clarity over the status of Great British Railways’ companies, set out very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in some of those examples. How will these partnerships work in practice? There is also the point around civil servants and their role. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wants clarity on the subsidiaries of Great British Railways and their potential future ownership. Whatever happens in this Bill, there will still be a huge amount of private sector involvement, because the rolling stock will still be owned by private companies and there is no plan to change that. Even if everything else is fully publicly owned, there will still be a huge amount of private sector involvement through the rolling stock.
There are many ways that you could look at structuring Great British Railways. One could have been a co-operative model. An understanding from the Minister on why this was felt to be the best way to deliver the quality of the railway service that we all want to see would be helpful. I look forward to the Minister’s response and clarification on these structural amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments, and the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Berkeley, for their contributions.
I will begin with Amendments 1 and 6, which would specify that the company designated as Great British Railways must be established under existing company law. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that, as is the case with Network Rail and the train operating companies, GBR will be a private limited company under the Companies Act 2006. It will have its own articles of association. The Bill is constructed around this assumption. For example, Clause 3(6) makes it clear that GBR can carry out business activities by virtue of being a limited company under existing company law. If it were not a Companies Act company, this and other provisions of the Bill would not be appropriate. The alternative to a Companies Act company would be something like a royal charter corporation, such as the BBC, or a statutory corporation, such as the Advanced Research and Invention Agency. GBR is clearly neither of these, given that the Bill does not establish it as such. Body corporate is a general term under UK law, meaning an incorporated organisation, which is what GBR will be. Combined with the drafting in Clause 3(6), the Bill is clear that GBR will be a Companies Act company.
I turn to Amendments 2 and 3. Amendment 2 would remove from the Bill the requirement that GBR be wholly owned by the Crown. As the noble Lord will be aware, this Government were elected with a clear mandate to nationalise the railways, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are ensuring that GBR is owned by the British people and run in their interests—not in the interests of private profit. Public ownership is key to creating a more efficient railway and a better passenger experience. It shifts the focus from profit to passengers and freight, and begins to put an end to the fragmentation and waste of the franchising system, allowing the whole industry to work together in the interests of the passenger. This approach will save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in fees and allow taxpayers’ money to be spent on things that will benefit the passenger instead.
The requirement in the Bill that GBR must be publicly owned will ensure that any future Government wanting to privatise the railways would have to seek the consent of Parliament to do so. This will put the system on exactly the same footing as it was under privatisation since—as I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge, given that he is trying to repeal it—an Act of Parliament was required to bring passenger rail services back into public hands. The latest YouGov poll shows that 76% of the public think that railways should be in the public sector and only 13% think they should be in the private sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, put it so well, previous Governments could have done something about it but they did not. The railway is an asset with significant financial, economic and safety implications, so it is right that Parliament scrutinises every major change to it.
Amendment 3 would ensure that GBR’s subsidiaries do not need to be wholly owned by the Crown. I will speak more about the Government’s policy on this in a moment when I address the amendments in this group from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but I am pleased to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that the drafting of Clause 1 already facilitates what he seeks to achieve. The requirement to be wholly owned by the Crown applies only to the parent company that is designated as GBR, not to any of its subsidiaries. For clarity, GBR subsidiaries come within the term “GBR companies”, as defined in the Bill. GBR companies are not subject to the “wholly owned” requirement, so I hope the noble Lord will see that his amendment is unnecessary.
Speaking of GBR’s subsidiaries, I will now address Amendments 5, 334, 335, 337 and 345 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She has said that she is a passionate supporter of public ownership, as we are. Her amendments would mean that GBR must wholly own all its subsidiaries for them to be considered GBR companies. As I have said before, we are committed to the private sector continuing to play a key role in the future rail sector, and this includes within GBR where appropriate. After all, the private sector can bring advantages that the public sector cannot, including greater risk appetite and additional investment that reduces the burden on the taxpayer. GBR will therefore leverage the best of both the public and the private sectors, working in close partnership with private companies, from freight and rolling stock to ticket retailing and the rail supply chain, to unlock benefits and drive growth.
The advantages of this approach were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and can already be seen in Network Rail’s successful joint ventures with the private sector, including through Platform4, a subsidiary of Network Rail which uses private sector investment to support community regeneration projects and is expected to deliver up to 40,000 new homes in the next decade through public/private joint ventures. For example, Platform4’s joint venture with Bloc Group has already secured 2,000 new rental homes near major city transport links. These types of investment would simply not be possible were I to accept the noble Baroness’s amendments. In addition, the amendments would prevent GBR from pursuing joint ventures with the devolved Governments, which I hope she agrees would not be the right outcome.
However, I can reassure the noble Baroness that, although the existing Companies Act definition of a subsidiary enables these public/private partnerships, importantly, it does not enable private sector control. Any private sector interest in a GBR company must be a minority shareholding, to ensure that the railway remains owned, controlled and operated by the public. The Government are also clear that certain aspects of the Bill, such as GBR’s access decision-making process and its ticket retailer, passenger services and vital cross-industry functions, will all remain part of the wholly publicly owned and controlled part of the business. This recognises that, while private sector investment is a great enabler of infrastructure development opportunities that can support our communities, it is not always suited to railway functions that must be run in the public interest.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will start by referring to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked to, because it just so happened that, as I was travelling to London yesterday, a car struck a bridge at Burnham. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is nodding; perhaps he was on the same train. The reason why it is important is that, although there was, I think, no significant damage to the bridge, the train was significantly late, which meant that every single person on it was entitled under the Delay Repay scheme to a significant refund of their fare. It was not the only train affected; lots of trains were. The cost to the taxpayer of that single incident was probably very significant, and it does not seem unreasonable that the insurance company of the person who struck the bridge should have to reimburse the taxpayer for the cost of that significant damage. Having had that experience yesterday, I am instinctively supportive of that amendment.
Before I talk about the other amendments in this group, I will make a teensy defence of the Sunak Administration, given what my noble friend Lord Moylan said, and since I was a member of it; I will not make an extensive one because that is not the purpose for which we are here. On this specific issue, we got the Williams review, which my noble friend referred to, and then we set in train the work that has, in effect, come to fruition with this Bill, in starting the process of setting up GBR. A lot of the preparatory work took place when we were in government, and there is a lot of agreement, I think, between how we would have done it and how the Minister is doing it today. The big difference, of course, is on the ownership of the companies but, in terms of bringing together a guiding mind—however one wishes to describe it—and a more seamless operation of track and train, that is certainly something that we intended to do and we started the process. That is my bit of a defence of what we did when we were in government.
Let me now address the amendments, starting with Amendment 7, and Clause 3. The problem with purpose clauses and a list of functions is the danger of what parliamentary draftsmen call undue specificity: as soon as you have a list, you then have a question about whether you are allowed to do the things that are not on the list. In his list, my noble friend Lord Moylan has things that are not in the Government’s list of functions, such as
“providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers”.
But in neither of the lists is what we have talked about: the work that Network Rail currently does, and GBR will continue to do, not just on operating passenger services or facilitating freight services but on maximising the benefit of its property portfolio—not only to generate revenue to offset the cost of providing rail services but to generate a significant amount of economic development and growth in significant parts of the country, as my noble friend Lord Lansley mentioned. The Government are woefully behind their housebuilding targets, but one of their priorities is developing housing around railway stations, and some of that land will be owned by Network Rail and, in due course, GBR. In relation to the amendment, I ask the Minister whether the functions set out in the Bill are sufficiently extensive to give GBR the powers it needs to do its work.
I also want to speak to Amendment 12, and the linked Amendments 80 and 81, on fair and non-discriminatory decisions, which it is important to put in the legislation. GBR will now make important decisions about access for private freight companies to the network, open access operators and—I will not labour this point here, because we will come to it in the next group—ticketing. Unlike the ORR, which did not have any skin in the game, GBR will be making decisions on, for example, freight access or open access, so it will be both a decision-maker and a provider of services, which are in competition. That is also true for ticket retailing. When it makes those decisions, it should have a legal duty to do so in a fair and non-discriminatory way, which is why I support the amendment. It would have two effects: it would govern how GBR operates and it would provide the opportunity for others to challenge it if it does not behave in that way.
Amendments 80 and 81 are linked, because they are about the charges that GBR can make for services where it is a monopoly supplier and, therefore, people do not have any choices. Amendment 81 would provide an appeal mechanism if it charges in a way that people do not think is reasonable. Both amendments would be very sensible to ensure that it behaves in a reasonable way.
There are two other amendments I want to comment on. Amendment 15, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, set out, sounds sensible on the face of it, but I will just flag three issues with it. First, when you move employers, there are potentially pension implications. I understand that the company that provides pensions to rail workers has flagged the time that will be required to do the pensions transition in a sensible way. We have seen in other areas of the public sector that, if you get that wrong, it can cause significant issues.
The second issue is one that we have seen, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, touched on in his remarks. I suspect that, at the moment, because these are all separate companies, there will be a range of pay structures. We have already seen this—as have the Government, to their own cost—in what they are doing with NHS England. They originally said that they wanted to bring NHS England and all its staff into the Department of Health and Social Care. As they set out on that process, because people in NHS England are in many cases paid significantly more than people in the Department of Health and Social Care, they have discovered either that they cannot do it or that doing it would be very expensive or require the Secretary of State or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to sign off the move of every single employee above a certain pay band. They have discovered that it is all very complicated, and they are effectively having to do the NHS England/DHSC change in a different way. If you stick everyone in a single company and you have to equalise all their pay and conditions, my concern is that if you do it in a downwards direction, it would clearly not be advantageous to those employees who lose out, but if you do it in an upwards direction then it is clearly damaging for the taxpayer, who has to pay all this increased cost without getting any productivity.
I want to flag one final thing, but will not go into it at length because we have a later group some way down where we will cover it in more detail. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, slightly gave the game away when he referred to a letter from the RMT’s parliamentary group: the point of this is to have a single national rail employer so that the trade unions can increase their power and once again be able to deliver national rail strikes, closing down the entire railway network, which they have not been able to do with different rail operating companies, as you could not have a strike in one of them in response to a dispute at another. People should be very clear: if there is a single employer—I have some amendments to test this—we will be back in the days where we have national rail strikes and increase the bargaining power of those trade unions. The experience over history is that that power is not used for the benefit of the passenger and customer but to extract money from the taxpayer. That would be a very damaging thing. I flag that now, but will not go into it in any more detail as I will come back to it later.
Finally, very briefly, I am attracted to Amendment 20 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The only point I would make to her, as I think I said at Second Reading, is that the reason why, when I was Secretary of State, I set up a freight target—there is reference to a freight target in the Bill—was to try to balance the fact that all the conversations we have about railways are always about passengers. The reason for the freight target was to slightly rebalance the conversation and have more of a level playing field. My worry is that, if you put the passenger target in the Bill, you reweight it back towards being all about passengers again. I absolutely agree with her that we want to increase the number of passengers and reduce the taxpayer subsidy, but the reason for having the freight target was to slightly rebalance and have more of a level playing field.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, my Amendments 20 and 110 would require Great British Railways to increase passengers on the railways and to set a passenger target, rather like the freight target, which has just been referred to. One could easily argue that this is not necessary, as any Government will want the railway to grow and passengers and freight to increase. Yet that is not necessarily the case. The Bill currently does not create a clear statutory duty to grow passenger use or to set measurable targets. The reform of the railway should not simply be to stabilise the current system as it is; it should be to actively grow demand and ensure access to the network to support the shift to sustainable modes of transport.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I refute that comment, for the avoidance of doubt and for the record.
The noble Lord is correct. It is an important distinction. As I said, let me meet him on that. He referred to Clause 70. I am not equipped to go into that just now, as he will appreciate, so I will talk to him further about it.
Amendment 18 removes the delegated power to add to the list of functions for GBR. While the functions listed in Clause 3 cover the breadth of activities that we expect GBR to undertake as the directing mind for the railways, it is sensible to provide the flexibility to add functions should the railways change significantly enough to warrant a new function being added—for example, due to technological development, such as in the artificial intelligence space.
This power is not expected to be used frequently, if at all, but it future-proofs the Bill in the event that new activities need to be brought within the scope of the functions. Bringing an activity within the functions in the Bill has several benefits, including that the function then becomes subject to GBR’s duties and ORR’s monitoring. This legislation is expected to govern the railways for a long time, as the 1993 Act did, so this is a responsible and sensible power. This power was also reviewed by the Delegated Powers Committee, which deemed it acceptable and did not draw it to the attention of the House in its report on the Bill—I welcome the report and look forward to responding to it formally in due course. The power cannot be used to change or remove functions and is subject to the affirmative resolution. It is also not unprecedented: the National Health Service Act 2006 allows functions to be added to special health authorities via regulations. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press this amendment.
Amendments 20 and 110 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, relate to passenger growth. I very much agree with her that growing passenger numbers on the railways is vital. It supports economic growth, jobs and homes, encourages modal shift and can reduce the level of taxpayer subsidy required for the railways. However, GBR’s general duties in Clause 18 already include a duty to promote not only the interests of passengers but potential passengers. This already requires GBR to consider how best to encourage new users on to the railways. GBR’s business plan will also reflect the Government’s ambitions for passenger growth, including measurable outcomes against which GBR can be held to account.
GBR’s other duties, including promoting high performance, such as reliability and punctuality, will also contribute to making the railways more appealing to passengers. Transport Focus recently found reliability to be the single most important issue for passengers. GBR will be able to improve reliability by making better, whole-system decisions on issues such as the choreography of maintenance works.
As a commercially minded organisation, GBR will also be naturally incentivised to attract more people to travel by rail, because increasing passenger numbers will increase its own revenue. By contrast, there is no intrinsic motivation for GBR to increase rail freight when there is limited network capacity and freight services are in the clear minority of services. That is why the Bill already includes a freight duty and a freight target, to ensure that freight is given equal weight to passengers in a system where passengers may have naturally taken priority otherwise. A stronger or additional passenger equivalent duty or target could actually undermine our ambitions on freight. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will agree that that would not be the right outcome.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
Before the noble Lord moves on, he has not really addressed the point that I made, which is that in Clause 18 there is a perverse incentive that somebody coming in with a different mindset from many of us in this Room could reduce the frequency of trains and hike up fares and still meet what is in this legislation. Even if the noble Lord does not agree with my amendment about a passenger target, and I accept the debate on that, can the Government agree to look at whether some other wording could be put in to strengthen this and make sure that this legislation does what we all want, which is to see more passengers on the railway?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The obligations placed on GBR by the long-term rail strategy, and the consequent approval by the Secretary of State of the business plan, should adequately deter Great British Railways from seeking to achieve that by diminishing services. Indeed, there was an example in the franchising era of the Government being loose with their definition of train services, only to discover that the franchisee had, remarkably, reduced the subsidy by withdrawing a number of services on rural branch lines. That clearly would not be possible with a decent long-term rail strategy and a consequent business plan to which a Government should agree.
Amendments 80 and 81 relate to the Clause 13 provision allowing GBR to charge for its functions. I agree that GBR must act reasonably while setting charges, and I assure the noble Lord that there are already safeguards in the Bill to ensure that charges are reasonable. GBR has a duty to ensure that railway service providers, such as other operators, can plan, invest and make decisions about their own businesses, so GBR must set charges that are consistent with this and do not undermine other people’s ability to run viable and successful businesses.
Competition law will apply to GBR, ensuring that charges it sets are not anti-competitive. In this context, an additional reasonableness test is duplicative without delivering any material additional protection. It is also important that GBR can recover appropriate costs from those who access and benefit from the services it provides. If it were prevented from doing so, the burden would ultimately fall on the taxpayer and passengers.
Amendment 81 would provide an appeal route. All I say to the noble Lord is that an appeal route to the ORR across every possible charge that GBR could levy is disproportionate. I have already mentioned the safeguards in existing law to ensure that those charges are fair.
On the private sector growth target referred to in Amendment 114, nothing in the Bill seeks to exclude or marginalise the contribution of the private sector, but I do not agree that a statutory target is the right approach. The Bill is absolutely an opportunity for the supply chain, but in that case, we have to let the market determine its contribution.
On Amendment 305 from my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I assure him that existing legal rules already allow railway operators to seek recovery of costs and other losses through civil law. A substantial amount of cost recovery is achieved already, and the limit to it is to do not with legal powers but with the identification of perpetrators who drive off. Given what I have set out, I encourage noble Lords and noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this has been a strong debate on an important issue. It is about ensuring that passengers have a wide range of retailers from which to buy their tickets and other associated services, whether for leisure or onward travel and so on, and that there is a level playing field between Great British Railways’ retail arm and the third sector providers. At the start of the discussion on this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, made a clear case about the issues, which are uniting members from across the Committee.
Throughout the discussions on all the amendments in these groups there has been a desire for genuine and fair choice for passengers. We want to promote a competitive retail market and equal access to systems, data and products so that they can be used by start-ups and others as well as established practitioners in this area. The latter point is important. It is part of Amendment 211 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and is supported by a number of other Members, including my noble friend Lord Dixon of Jericho. I want to spell out why these issues are so important.
I was really interested to hear about the recent product launched in Wales earlier, which not all third-party retailers were able to promote. In the last week, South Western Railway has had a special discount, some kind of flash sale, on rail tickets on its services. I was not able to find these on my usual app—Trainline, though others are available—but only on the South Western Railway website, which is what I had to use to purchase these super-discounted tickets. It may well be my technological limitations failing me, but, if I had not seen an email from South Western Railway, I would not have known about these special tickets and would have ended up paying three to four times the amount for my travel.
There has to be a genuine level playing field where all retailers can sell the same tickets and discounted tickets and use their skills and innovations to drive more traffic through their sites and apps. Different people read data and information in different ways, and that is why we have such a range of apps; we all look at things differently and have different ways we want to purchase tickets. It is important that this can thrive, with the jobs and innovation that this creates.
Members from different parties are in the same area on this issue, but some go further. Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, wishes to prevent Great British Railways having any retail website or application until Parliament has had a say over its full-life cost. This sounds a little bit like what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, was talking about—when he was in the department saying, “Why is Great British Railways getting into this space at all?”
As we have already heard, if you look internationally, SNCF has a retail arm in France, but it is kept separate from the main SNCF network, so there is no conflict. In some ways, that is a bit like the regeneration and planning functions of a local authority. They are a part of the same body, but they have to be kept separate because of their distinct functions. Amendment 182 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, suggests a way to do this, which may help with this concern.
My noble friend Lord Dixon of Jericho spoke eloquently at Second Reading about this area. I know he has held several meetings with officials to discuss his concerns not just about the existing third-party retailers but the ease for new entrants—start-ups—to come into this marketplace and offer the quality services that passengers desire.
Finally, I want to pick up on Amendments 208 and 339, tabled by my noble friend Lady Leaman. This is so important for passengers. It would ensure automatic Delay Repay compensation, whichever retailer you have bought your tickets with. It is about putting the passenger front and centre so that, if something does go wrong, they are compensated without having to jump through hoop after hoop. It is a basic right if we are to transform our railways into the modern, passenger-focused service that we all desire.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on this really strong debate; I hope that it is far more than simply saying that the retail code of practice, as an approved document, will deal with all these issues. I think the Minister will have heard loudly and clearly—and not just from the transport enthusiasts, though many of us are here in this Room—that noble Lords are rightly concerned about this area, and we must get this right.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, but I will not speak to them because right at the outset my noble friend Lady Harding said that there were quite a lot of amendments in this group which offered different means of achieving the same thing, and it was hard to say which were the better ones. I am not claiming that mine are better than others, and I think my noble friend Lord Harper said something along the same lines. We have put them down because we feel strongly about a very important issue, we want it debated, we want the Government to take note and to do something about it before we get to Report. Whether they do what my amendment or somebody else’s amendment says is something we might have a chance to debate and discuss privately before we get to that point—I do not know—but I am not wedded to my particular solutions and therefore will not speak directly to them.
I will say that we on our side support everything that has been said, in that we are curious about why GBR is doing this. I will come back to this point; I will make the Minister’s case for him in a moment, rather against my own interests. We are curious as to why the Minister wants to do this in the first place but, if he is going to do it, there has to be a level playing field for those who are already in the field and other new entrants, because they have demonstrated the advantages they can bring to passengers. The difficulty here—it will arise in the next group—is that GBR is effectively a huge bear sitting in your front room. That bear is both a competitor and a regulator, and its slightest twitch, even unintentionally, could do serious damage to your business. There are a lot of private sector businesses, not just in ticket retailing but those who want to have access to freight and for other purposes, which we will come to later—open access and so forth —which are very worried about what is being created.
The only assurance we are getting from the Minister is essentially, “We are decent professional people; we will do this well”. That is fine. The noble Lord is a decent and professional person. Having worked with him for many years, I am happy if it is of any value to him to give him that endorsement. However, he lacks the quality of immortality. It is necessary to give at least 30 years’ guarantee, if this is going to be the legislative background for 30 years.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, these amendments look to ensure a fairness between Great British Railways operations and open access and freight operators in terms of charges and access to the track, and concern the change to the current role of the Office of Rail and Road. Since the publication of the Bill, there has been a big debate in the sector about this over the past 18 months or more. Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to change Great British Railways’ functions so that decisions about access to and the use of railway infrastructure would instead be carried out by the Office of Rail and Road, as is the case now, as he said. On the other hand, Amendment 221 approaches this differently, with a subsequent right of appeal to the ORR after going through the dispute resolution process set out in the Bill. It would leave the function with GBR but bring in more of an appeals function.
The Bill is a real change to open access operations on the railway and it is right that we scrutinise how it will work in practice. As we have heard, a number of innovative open access operators are running good services with competitive fares. With the vast majority of passenger services being in public ownership, there needs to be confidence that Great British Railways is operating in a clear and transparent way, with an appropriate mechanism for challenge set at the right bar. There is concern that removing the current function of the Office of Rail and Road with regards to access will mean that Great British Railways will always prioritise its own services and may choose to not continue open access operations in the future—some of which are very successful, but there is a fear out there.
We have some concerns over this shift in power between the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road. We want to see the publication of decisions and any evidence that has supported decisions, as well as real engagement with passengers and representative bodies as timetables are developed and services are changed. Of course, freight comes in here too. Freight will be critical to help move lorries off our roads and grow our regional economies, so freight access is equally important. We need transparency and openness between Great British Railways and the other parties in this space in terms of track charges and access. I hope that the Minister will provide the assurance that industry would like to hear on this important change in legislation.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for Amendment 16 and for this short debate. In the groupings for Committee, there are some very substantial numbers of amendments about access in groups 26 to 31, so I will answer these amendments very briefly because I am sure we will have very detailed debate subsequently. Indeed, I will leave some of the points that noble Lords have made this evening in order to come back to them when we get to groups 26 and 31.
I want to be very clear that the existing access framework is, in our view, not fit for purpose. It is built on 30 years of complex legislation, regulations, contracts and codes. It requires Network Rail and the ORR to take decisions using inconsistent criteria, based on differing duties and objectives, with no common vision. Fundamentally, no single party is responsible for planning the best overall use of the network and ensuring that access decisions deliver that plan. The current system has too often been characterised by fragmentation and delay, and it is clear that nobody is in overall charge. That has led to inefficient use of capacity and decisions that serve neither passengers nor freight well.
There are clear examples of the consequences. The May 2018 timetable failure—the original catalyst for rail reform—saw punctuality and reliability plummet across large parts of the network. Keith Williams’ review highlighted how this was the result of a complex, fragmented system with no single person in charge. Timetables are often built by trying to piece together layers of past decisions and contractual rights. On the east coast main line, the current system resulted in years of decision-making paralysis, with neither Network Rail, the ORR or operators able to agree a timetable. Service improvements that were supposed to result from £4 billion-worth of taxpayers’ investment were delayed by several years. The only way this could be resolved in the end was by me, as Rail Minister, stepping in to make the decision that no one else wanted to, which is clearly not an acceptable outcome at all.
Noble Lords will recall last December, when the ORR ruled that the 0700 from Manchester Piccadilly to Euston would have to run fully staffed but with no passengers on it, against the wishes of both the operator and the network provider, which agreed that it should run. The ORR itself acknowledged that it did not have all the facts when it took that decision.
The current system has failed to unlock meaningful freight growth. Too often, the needs of freight operators and their customers have been put to the back of the queue. Paths labelled as “strategic freight” are not strategically planned at all and may not even join up, as they are often just a mixed bag of surrendered paths and leftovers.
In the current system there is no overarching strategy—no overall plan for how to make best use of the network—and where no single body has end-to-end authority, critical information can be missed, escalation is unclear and blurred accountability leads to capacity being used in ways that increase disruption, letting down both passengers and freight customers.
An integrated railway under GBR’s leadership is the only way to fix this. As the single directing mind for the railway, GBR will proactively plan how to make best use of the network. It will be empowered to ensure that access decisions take proper account of that plan, implementing an achievable and reliable timetable that makes the very best use of the limited capacity available. Better co-ordination of the timetable will minimise delays, improve reliability and reduce costs—and may well open space for new routes and services. For freight operators, the new system will provide much greater certainty about the capacity available for them to grow their services, with GBR enabled and empowered to protect that capacity. The truth is that, if we leave it as it is, the system will never change.
I will deal with the crucial distinction between Clause 60 and 63 when we get to the detailed debates, but in the meantime I do not accept Amendment 16, which would fundamentally undermine the purpose of these reforms. It is unacceptable and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Amendment 221 would require the access and use policy to set out not only a process for dealing with disputes but a right of appeal. Of course I agree that GBR’s strong leadership under the new system must be accompanied by strong accountability. That is why the ORR will act as a robust and independent appeals body for access, capacity allocation and charging decisions made by GBR on its network. The ORR’s appeals function will provide a clear, credible and accessible route to challenge those decisions.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, these amendments rightly question the impact of this legislation on Scotland and Wales and the role of Scottish and Welsh Ministers in decisions, including cross-border ones. The discussion we have had is about what devolution really means in this context and the democratic accountability. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on these important points raised by noble Lords.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the first thing I should say about this group is that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have been intensely involved in drafting the Bill, and both Governments are very supportive of it.
I turn to Amendment 21. Clause 4 enables Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make arrangements for their functions to be exercised by GBR, a GBR subsidiary or a company jointly owned. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spotted that correctly; he is absolutely right. It is an enabling power designed to support integration where that is considered beneficial. It does not prevent devolved Ministers from continuing to exercise their functions themselves, nor is it intended to provide a general power to delegate functions to any body corporate.
Indeed, under Clause 27, Welsh Ministers will continue to designate Wales-only services and Welsh components of cross-border services. Under Clause 31, Welsh Ministers may either provide those services themselves or secure their provision through the award of public service contracts. Similar powers exist for Scottish Ministers under Clauses 26 and 31. Of course, Scottish Ministers can decide to run their services through GBR or through their own operator. The Government therefore believe that the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between preserving devolved responsibilities and enabling closer integration with GBR, where that is desired by Scottish or Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 22 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require the ORR to be consulted. Clause 4 already requires consultation with both the Secretary of State and GBR before such arrangements are made, varied or revoked. That is because GBR is the body that may be responsible for carrying out the function, while the Secretary of State has an interest in the wider operation and integration of the railway system, and because GBR will be operating devolved functions alongside reserved ones. They are therefore the parties best placed to provide input on these arrangements. Although the ORR plays an important role as the railway’s independent regulator, these arrangements concern the exercise of devolved functions and national versus devolved governance, rather than regulatory matters. We therefore do not consider an additional statutory consultation requirement to be necessary.
On Amendments 145 and 146, the Government fully support transparency and effective parliamentary scrutiny. That is precisely why we have already published the agreed memorandum of understanding with Welsh Ministers and a framework for the memorandum of understanding with Scottish Ministers. That has enabled Parliament to consider the proposed arrangements alongside the Bill. The memoranda of understanding are intended to provide a basis for joint working between UK Ministers and Scottish and Welsh Ministers on matters relating to rail services and funding. They are not legislative instruments but practical agreements to support effective intergovernmental working.
The amendments would require the MoUs to be published at the same time as the rail strategy and would impose a two-month period before they could come into force. However, the rail strategy and the MoUs serve distinct and seperate purposes. The rail strategy sets out long-term priorities and objectives for the railway, while the MoU supports collaborative working between the UK and Welsh or Scottish Governments. Requiring the two documents to be published at the same time would create unnecessary friction and delay. Similarly, requiring a two-month waiting period before an MoU could take effect would add process without materially improving oversight or outcomes.
Railways Bill
Baroness Pidgeon ExcerptsTuesday 7th July 2026
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June - large print - (10 Jun 2026)
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, for his valedictory speech and thoughtful words, and I wish him well in his retirement.
The focus from these Benches is on how we improve train services for passengers and freight. How do we ensure the passenger is at the centre of Great British Railways, and that it operates in a transparent and fair manner?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley: we need the railway to succeed. If we are to see more people using the railway to travel around our country, it needs to become a more attractive offer. That means reliable services, more carriages where needed, comfortable seats, easy storage for luggage and bikes, on-board catering for longer-distance journeys—I have raised this many times with the Minister—good-value fares that are easy to understand, and high speed wifi. We need the railway to be an attractive experience that rivals using the car, which, as we have heard, remains the go-to mode of transport for many people outside our cities. Having heard many noble Lords’ experiences today, I think the account from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, of a 666-minute delay feels like the record.
Stations also need to feel safe: they need to be well-lit and staffed where possible. The accessibility of train stations and surrounding areas needs to be improved for those who are mobility impaired. It was very good to hear, in his opening words, the Minister’s commitment to this space. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, highlighted the impact of this on the economy, as well as on passengers.
A modern railway is going to need significant planning and investment, and a 30-year strategy at its core with measurable KPIs to assess progress. There is no point bringing the track and trains together if there is uncertainty over budgets to run the railway each day, budgets for investing in rolling stock and infrastructure and, dare I say it, even budgets to grow the railway or make improvements that allow greater access for freight and passenger trains, as highlighted by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. We will be tabling amendments in Committee about funding for the railway. Ahead of that, I ask the Minister whether the rolling stock strategy will be published by September, so that noble Lords can see how it sits alongside this legislation and can provide certainty for the industry.
One glaring omission from the Bill is a passenger growth duty. Rail reform is not just about stabilising the system. We strongly support calls for passenger growth targets equivalent to the duty for freight in the Bill and believe that embedding growth for passengers would send a strong message that this is about expanding and growing the railway, rather than managing decline. As my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley mentioned, we want to see “rail miles” introduced on the railway, because a key part of a passenger-centred railway is the need to offer incentives for passengers to try the railway and a loyalty scheme for regular passengers. We believe that Great British Railways needs to look at how to get more people using the railway, rather than cutting trains to reduce costs. There are good initiatives in other European countries, such as the Netherlands. I hope that this is an area that the Minister will be sympathetic towards as we move to Committee.
My noble friend Lord Dixon highlighted the importance of a level playing field for apps and others who sell train tickets, and the wider opportunities in this area to improve services for passengers. We have seen such progress in recent years, centred around the consumer; we must not go backwards. Likewise, my noble friend Lady Leaman rightly described the importance of a quality passenger experience, issues around delay-repay and the need for automated refunds. My noble friend Lady Brinton talked passionately about the importance of GBR becoming a truly accessible railway in every sense and, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, described the daily realities for disabled passengers.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, talked about the rail giving access to work for disabled people. I recently met a young accessibility campaigner from Manchester, Nathaniel Yates. Nathaniel has been campaigning for accessible stations across Manchester. He has been championing the concerns of many young people who attend specialist colleges and are prevented from using the railway, despite stations being nearby. This can be due to a lack of staffing or limited step-free access, and there was a mixed experience of using passenger assistance. Some felt that the accessibility challenges led to them using different rail stations or different, often more costly, modes of transport. We need to see an improvement in accessibility. We will return to this important topic in Committee, to ensure that our railway is fit for everyone.
Passenger safety is also critical. The latest passenger survey, published by Transport Focus last month, showed that personal safety and security on the train and at stations is an increasing priority for passengers. Some 12,000 rail passengers took part in the research and ranked various aspects of travelling by train. Safety concerns came second and third, behind only trains running on time and not being cancelled. For some, personal safety and security on trains topped their “what matters” list, including, in particular, women, disabled people and passengers from black and minority ethnic communities. Passengers say that they feel that increased staff visibility, including ticket checking and challenging low-level anti-social behaviour and the use of CCTV “in the moment” would really help. Great British Railways must ensure that stations are well lit and have CCTV and look at staffing levels across the network.
Turning to other parts of the Bill, concerns remain over the scope of the clauses and the unintended consequences as drafted. We heard support for the growth of freight from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Whitaker. For example, in the world of freight, ports and freight terminals often own and operate rail infrastructure that connects directly to the wider rail network but has been funded and developed privately. For the private sector to continue to invest in this rail-linked infrastructure, the language in the Bill has to be precise, and not allow for GBR to potentially intervene in private rail infrastructure and create legal uncertainty.
London St Pancras Highspeed also has concerns with the language in the Bill, which could unintentionally create uncertainty for specialist infrastructure that sits outside the new GBR access and charging framework. We will seek clarity in Committee. As the Government create this new organisation, it is important that it has the right culture from the start: open, transparent and accessible through all its business and to its core. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House of this at this stage.
We on these Benches have some concerns over the shift in power between the Secretary of State, the Office of Rail and Road and the Passengers’ Council. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also raised concerns about the Office of Rail and Road and its reduced role. We are concerned that the Secretary of State is, in effect, judge and jury in some areas. We also want to see that the Passengers’ Council has the teeth it needs to do its job well and we want to see decisions published and evidence that has supported any decisions, as well as real engagement with passengers and representative bodies.
My noble friend Lady Humphreys and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, highlighted the needs for Wales, with the semi-devolution there, and across the House we heard a number of different concerns—from the noble Baronesses, Lady May of Maidenhead and Lady Alexander, the noble Lords, Lord Grayling and Lord Lansley, and others—on the issue of devolution. My maiden speech in this House focused on rail devolution. The Minister said on Report of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill on 6 November 2024 in responding to my amendment on rail devolution:
“I can reaffirm to your Lordships’ House that the railways Bill will include a statutory role for devolved Governments and mayoral combined authorities. They will be involved in governing, managing, planning and developing the railways”.—[Official Report, 6/11/24; col. 1543.]
Yet, the Bill as currently drafted, in the view of a number of mayoral authorities, does not provide the statutory powers that mayoral strategic authorities require; rather, they are consultative. It is permissive rather than mandatory. GBR “may” enter into arrangements with local government bodies or it may not. It is consultation-based rather than commissioning-based. It does not provide a clear route for devolving rail funding. As this Government are moving towards establishing more mayoral strategic authorities, it is clear that we need statutory powers designed in from the start rather than bolted on afterwards.
Transport for London and the Mayor of London are concerned that the Bill as drafted would give GBR extensive control over network access for both GBR and non-GBR operators without sufficient safeguarding for devolved or open-access services, as others noble Lords have mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, also flagged issues with the heritage railway sector, which is relevant here too. This could allow GBR to prioritise longer-distance services over metro-style services such as the Elizabeth line, potentially resulting in fewer passenger journeys in and around London, reduced service frequencies, and constraints on future growth. I flag to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who talked about the Elizabeth line, that two-thirds of the investment in the Elizabeth line came from London businesses and development and borrowing from TfL, not national government. That is how you build a successful railway line.
I hope the Minister will reconsider the wording in the Bill around devolution, given his assurance to me previously in this House. We on these Benches want to see Great British Railways succeed and deliver improved train services for passengers and expanded freight, removing lorries from our roads. We look forward to working with the Minister to help improve the Bill and secure the transformation that passengers need and deserve.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
Baroness Pidgeon ExcerptsThursday 18th June 2026
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (17 Jun 2026)
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, and this has been a useful debate. It goes to the heart of what the Bill could enable and the safeguards clearly needed to protect communities that will be impacted by any changes to airspace use. As my noble friend Lord Russell outlined, Amendment 60, in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, would put those guardrails in place. It would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities, alongside making environmental and noise impact assessments, before being able to make a direction. This is critical. As we know, altering flight paths and redesigning airspace will have a significant impact on a surprisingly large area, as those communities impacted by the existing Heathrow and Gatwick airports, for example, are only too aware. A Secretary of State must understand the impact on people, noise and the environment of any potential decision. It is an important part of the decision-making process.
I understand that the Minister has given assurances that the Bill is not intended as a vehicle for airport expansion, but that is not a legal safeguard, as my noble friend Lord Russell outlined. Putting a duty in the Bill would ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between a necessary operational change and a change that, in effect, facilitates additional capacity without the transparency that would accompany a normal expansion decision. Without mandatory consultation and that impact assessment, there is a real risk that expansion could be delivered through the back door. This amendment matters to residents under the flight path, including communities such as those in Richmond, Kingston and Hounslow. They already live with the consequences of aircraft noise and emissions. If the Secretary of State is to have this power, the Bill must clearly specify procedural safeguards.
As we have heard from noble Lords, the other amendments in this group test the same principle of whether airspace modernisation is being carried out in a transparent, accountable and proportionate way. We are sympathetic to their aims as detailed by my noble friend Lord Russell. I am rather nervous about the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, getting lost in the sky, as he said earlier. I am very grateful that we have modern navigation systems these days. If we are to redesign our skies, we should not do so in a way that leaves people on the ground with less say, less information and fewer protections than we had before. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am impressed by the enormous experience of aviation and ministerial responsibility for aviation present in the Committee. I do not claim either, but I will do my best to respond to this group. First, I say that we support the principle of airspace modernisation. If we have a complaint about it, it is that it is taking so long. If it needs legislation, why is that legislation is arriving only now, seven years after it started? The Minister might explain that and what sort of timetable he is expecting to pursue with airspace modernisation.
The Bill gives the Minister new powers of direction that are extremely broad, and that is the basis for most of the complaints and concerns—I think concerns rather than complaints—expressed in the Committee so far. They are very broad powers of direction and are almost unconstrained. I think it fair to say that no part of the Committee believes that those powers should be unconstrained. We believe that there should be processes that allow for consultation and accountability. Indeed, one could even argue that it would be more appropriate than giving directions for the Secretary of State to have to have recourse to a statutory instrument. That is not an amendment that has been proposed today, but it would be one way of addressing the Committee’s concerns.
I will briefly deal with the amendments. Both Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 61, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling, seek to impose a consultation requirement of a general character on the Minister. I do not think that that can be gainsaid; the Minister will have to agree it in one form or another. If he cannot give us assurances today that he will bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report, I very much hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will work together to draft an amendment that we can all rally behind.
Amendment 62 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. As at Second Reading, I found his speech most enlightening and interesting. I will make a small diversion to comment on it in a moment. However, the general principle is whether pilots—either through their trade union or in some other forum, as he said—should be consulted, and consulted specifically and early, about airspace changes. The answer is surely that they must be, since, as he explained—I do not need to repeat it—their stake in the business and activity is so high and so responsible that they should of course be involved in consultation at an early stage.
I will comment briefly on the broader question raised by the noble Lord of how this system works. We are seeing automated systems very much on the railways and certainly on London Underground—I know the noble Lord has great experience in rail and not just as a pilot—and in the motorcars with gubbins on the top that one now sees around the streets, driving themselves but with a driver present. The essential point of all these systems is to get them to drive closer together. They will drive closer together more safely under these automated systems. Take the example of the Victoria line, where the trains come practically every 90 seconds: that would not be possible if there was a human driver responsible for stopping and starting, because they would need to make judgments about how to do that.
The crucial difference—here I support the noble Lord—with ground-based systems such as railways, and, I assume, cars, is that the fail-safe if something goes wrong is to bring the system to a total stop. You can do that on a railway; you can just stop it, so that no train moves until you work out what has gone wrong and how to put it right. That is the safety mechanism. You cannot do that in the air, so our approach to aviation safety has to be very different. The input of pilots must be crucial to all of this. If, in the absence of an amendment from the Minister, one were to come forward from the noble Lord that expressed that—although not necessarily in these words, but if he could show himself open to adaptation—we would be very happy to support it.
My noble friends Lord Kirkhope and Lord Goschen spoke about the importance of general aviation. I am happy to second that for all the reasons they gave on both its economic contribution and its role in being a feeder to the skills necessary in the larger commercial aviation sector.
I will focus particularly on what my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said about charging and turn to my own Amendment 64, which is on just that point. There is a striking new subsection in Clause 6. It says:
“Persons may be specified (or of a description specified) if the services concerned are available for their use or benefit, and it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by, or actually benefit or could benefit, them”.
There is something of a contradiction written into that, because they would have to meet both limbs of the test. The first limb says that they
“are available for their use or benefit”.
The second limbs says, “Well, they could not be used by them and could not benefit them”. How can they be available for their use or benefit on the one hand and it still be the case that they could not be used by or benefit them and are still chargeable? I hope that I have expressed that correctly but, if noble Lords read the clause carefully, they will see that that is what it says. It says that they have to be available for their use or benefit but that it is immaterial whether they could use them or benefit from them. That seems like an obvious contradiction.
Introducing the word “persons” obviously requires some explanation. I am sure that the Minister is going to give it. I suspect that the explanation might be along the lines of the fact that there are drones and other things in the skies now, not simply aircraft. If that is the explanation, it has to deal with the clear point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, but I am a little more relaxed about that. What I am not relaxed about is being asked to give the Minister the power to levy charges on people who could not use or benefit from the services in question. As it stands, this clause shows every sign of being hastily and poorly drafted. One would hope that the Minister would come forward on Report with improved drafting, but, if not, I suspect that there will be an amendment to deal with it.
It is fair to say, in these happy circumstances that have arisen, that the whole of the Committee is united on nearly all of the points we have debated in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to join that circle and not disrupt the unanimity that the Committee has so fortunately achieved.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in this group of amendments.
We are fortunate to have air ambulance services operating in the United Kingdom. It is important to stress that these are typically not government-provided services; they are supported by charitable organisations and others. When one needs the service, one needs it very much indeed—that is probably the best way of putting it. The speed of response, particularly in rural Devon where I live—the air ambulance is based in a field that I am very familiar with—means that it is a tremendous service. It is able to get around the county swiftly and provide much needed services for people who have been involved in serious road or agricultural accidents, have been carried out to sea, or whatever.
I was concerned to hear, as the noble Lord stated, that the industry had concerns about the rules and regulations and procedures under which they operate, and felt they could be enhanced. From my own anecdotal experience of hearing from the air ambulance service, I know it is always given priority, formally and informally, by other users and by ATCs. I am concerned and surprised that there are such problems, and I look forward to the Minister responding. On whether those requirements should be written into the Bill, I am not going to fall into the trap, much criticised earlier in our proceedings, of doing the Minister’s job for him. We will let him do some heavy lifting on that.
Similarly, on Amendment 102A, I am not familiar with the precise detail but it is clearly important that the CAA takes fully into account all the voices and interests of those with a great deal of expertise in small airport operation. Again, whether that needs to be written into the Bill or not is something that we can consider later. If the noble Lord succeeds in achieving his objective of easier access to the Scilly Isles, no doubt he will be carried shoulder-high by his fellow islanders.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, are worthy of support and raise some important points. I am grateful to him for bringing these important matters before the Committee and for his persistence on these issues.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this is a substantial group and I am grateful to noble Lords who have tabled amendments covering how slot allocation powers should be structured, constrained and scrutinised. It is a clear theme in many of the amendments before us. I thought the referee versus regulator point from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, was powerful in summing up a lot of this.
Before I turn to the amendments, I will remind the Committee of a thread that ran through Second Reading: the question of airport expansion and, in particular, whether the slots regime and the significant new powers that the Secretary of State is taking in relation to it could be used to facilitate or, in effect, predetermine expansion decisions. As your Lordships have heard, slots are capacity. Control over slot allocation is, in important respects, control over how airports can grow and who benefits from that growth. The Government may say that the expansion question is separate, but the mechanisms are not neatly separate, and I suspect that those questions will return on Report.
The regional connectivity concern raised in this group is one that many noble Lords feel strongly about. Hub airport access for regional routes is not just for commercial convenience. It is a question of whether communities and economies across the United Kingdom are connected nationally and then internationally.
Finally, on parliamentary procedure, the House has consistently held that significant regulatory powers should be subject to proper parliamentary oversight. I hope the Minister would not want to resist that principle here. I look forward to his response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly introduce my own amendments and then comment on others. I have Amendments 70, 71 and 72. Amendment 72 is consequential on Amendment 71 so, in effect, I have two amendments, and the first is to do with consultation.
I can see no requirement in the Bill for the Government to undertake any consultation prior to exercising the powers they seek under this legislation. We recently debated the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026, and the industry told us that the consultation on those was extremely short. That was partly to do with getting the regulations done before the powers gap closes or opens, but the consultation was extremely short.
The result of it, according to the Government’s own statement, was that the airlines supported what the Government were doing but the airports were adamantly opposed. They were opposed principally because, as my noble friend Lady Foster said, the slots allocator already has the powers to respond in emergencies; there is no need for this action to take place. I come back to the point about consultation. That was a good example of consultation done badly and not listened to. Here, we have no consultation promised at all. My amendment would require it.
My second amendment concerns the fact that statutory instruments will be used here. The significant ones will be done by the affirmative process, but there is an exemption for those that have temporary effect, which will be done by the negative process. This is a direct downgrading because the airport slots regulations we considered in Grand Committee only last week were temporary in their character; they last only for the coming summer and winter seasons. It is precisely that type of statutory instrument—that type of government action—that will now be moved to be taken under the negative process. This is definitely a downgrade of parliamentary scrutiny and my amendment would eliminate it. Amendment 72 is, as I say, consequential on that.
To come to the other contributions in this debate, it is fair to say that, between them, my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lady Foster of Oxton have driven an entire coach and horses through this section of the Bill. They ask the crucial question: what is the necessity for this? Not only that, but what is the benefit to the public of the Government intervening in something that is, in essence, first, a private market activity and, secondly, working perfectly well at the moment, with no reason to think that that is likely to change? Although I am sure that the Minister will want to defend these proposals when he gets to his feet, the tenor of debate in Committee is that they should be done away with wholesale. My amendments, which would simply require consultation and better processes, are inadequate to the task. When we come back on Report, we will have to challenge clearly why the Government are involved in this at all, with what purpose and to what effect—unless, of course, the Minister can satisfy us today.
Baroness Pidgeon
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section that would have the effect of facilitating airport expansion unless the Secretary of State has first—(a) consulted persons likely to be affected by the proposed expansion, including communities in the vicinity of the airport,(b) undertaken an environmental impact assessment of the proposed expansion, and(c) undertaken a noise impact assessment of the proposed expansion.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations that facilitate airport expansion unless they have first consulted affected communities, completed an environmental impact assessment, and completed a noise impact assessment. It ensures that proper scrutiny and community engagement take place before any expansion can be progressed through secondary legislation.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment 105 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, to which I have added my name. Amendments 69 and 105 address what is, for me, the key issue with the Bill: whether the powers could be used to facilitate airport expansion and, if so, on what terms. Amendment 69 would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities, complete an environmental impact assessment and complete a noise impact assessment before making any regulations that facilitate expansion. Amendment 105 would go further by prohibiting the use of the powers in the Bill for that purpose altogether.
All the communities that are most directly affected by airport expansion—those living under flight paths, those experiencing noise, air quality and traffic impacts and those with a general disturbance from planes flying over them quite some distance from airports—have consistently found themselves presented with fait accompli decisions rather than meaningful consultation. Amendment 69 would, at a minimum, require such consultation, environmental assessment and noise assessment to precede any regulatory action that facilitates expansion. That is not a high bar; it is basic good governance. Although I heard what the Minister said to us in our debate on an earlier group, we believe that this amendment is very much needed, so that it is clearly spelled out.
Airport expansion, at Heathrow in particular, is one of the most contested infrastructure decisions that this country faces. It has planning implications, climate implications and profound implications for communities living under flight paths. Amendment 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, rightly asks for a published assessment of airspace slot and scheduling impact before any decision on a third runway. We think that he makes an important point.
The central question for the Minister is simple: can he give this Committee a clear, unambiguous assurance that nothing at all in the Bill could be used to facilitate airport expansion decisions that have not been subject to full environmental scrutiny, proper community consultation, which goes far further than the exercise we discussed earlier, and meaningful parliamentary oversight? I look forward to his answer with interest and I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 110 and make one or two comments on the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, spoke to. Amendment 69 seems perfectly sensible, requiring consultation and so forth. I have more of an issue with Amendment 105. If the processes to determine airport expansion have been complied with, it does not seem sensible to say, “As a result, you can’t use any of the powers in this Act to facilitate that properly taken and consulted-on decision”. While I do not have enormous objection to the noble Baroness’s first amendment, the second one goes a bit too far, so I am half agreeing with her, which is an improvement on where we were last time. I hope that she takes that in the spirit in which it is intended.
My remarks on my own amendment may appear a bit disjointed because I am going to slightly amend them in flight, as it were. Members of the Committee may or may not be aware that, while we have been debating this, the Secretary of State has published a Written Ministerial Statement on the aviation framework, which is specifically to do with Heathrow expansion. I thank the Minister for his courtesy in drawing to my attention, because I have tabled amendments on Heathrow, that the timing of the Written Statement would be during our debate today. I have been through the Statement, but it is quite extensive, so I have done it at speed and might ask things that are covered in it or in some of the attached documentation, which I have not had a chance to study. Given that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, talked about airport expansion, my amendment might give the Minister a helpful opportunity when he comes to wind up this group of amendments to perhaps set out for the Committee’s benefit one or two of the key points in the Secretary of State’s Written Statement, which I think will interest all noble Lords who are interested in aviation.
My amendment is drafted in such a way as to make sure that it is within scope of the Bill. The purpose of tabling it was to press the Government a bit on the choice that they made, which they set out last November and reiterated in the Written Statement today, to settle on the more expensive of the two options set out: the proposal by Heathrow Airport Ltd for a more ambitious, longer runway with a total price tag of £49 billion. Heathrow Airport has committed that that will be financed entirely privately. Obviously, there will need to be a regulatory funding mechanism for that, but I will not dwell on that now because I have some later amendments, in group 7, which I will touch on at that point, so as not to repeat myself.
I want to understand from the Minister whether the Government are satisfied—I presume that they are, given that they are proceeding in this direction, but I have not seen the underpinning rationale that supports the decision. When she made the decision, the Secretary of State said that the Government’s choice of the more expensive of the two options was “the most credible”, so I would like to understand the Government’s thinking about that.
The Minister and I worked together on HS2 when I was Secretary of State and he was chairman of Network Rail. He knows that infrastructure projects, albeit publicly financed ones, can end up costing rather more money than originally intended. I am worried that this project is now intended to be entirely privately financed. If that does not stick, the Government are very much committed—rightly, in my view—to expanding Heathrow, and I want to make sure that the taxpayer does not at some point end up being on the hook for very significant amounts of public money that they are not currently planning to spend.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will certainly consider what I can say to the noble Lord before Report.
The Heathrow expansion national policy statement includes the full suite of appraisal and supporting analytical documents. Alongside the public consultation, that draft policy statement will be laid before Parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny by a nominated parliamentary Select Committee. Following the consultation, the Government will carefully consider all responses received, alongside the report of the parliamentary Select Committee, before deciding whether to designate an amended national policy statement. If the Government decide to proceed, the amended policy statement will be published and laid before Parliament, in accordance with the requirements set out in the Planning Act 2008, and be subject to a vote in the other place before it can take legal effect. Any development consent application for expansion at Heathrow must include detailed, project-specific assessments, including operational and system-wide impacts, and will be published and examined through the Planning Inspectorate process.
Not all the matters covered by Amendment 110 can be determined at a single point. Airspace design, in particular, is developed iteratively and requires sufficient certainty about an expansion scheme before it can be finalised, approved and implemented. Airspace change proposals are also subject to their own oversight processes, including detailed assessment and public consultation, and do not pre-empt planning decisions. It would not be appropriate to include requirements for a specific infrastructure project in this Bill, which is concerned, as I have said, with consumer protection and regulatory reform. Given the extensive information and scrutiny that will already apply to Heathrow expansion, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I agree that tackling climate change and reducing aviation emissions must remain central to aviation policy. However, I cannot accept this amendment. Elements of Amendment 114 would duplicate existing duties under the Climate Change Act 2008, but the provisions on airport capacity go significantly further. This Government support airport expansion where it is justified. The UK needs sufficient airport capacity to support economic growth, trade, freight and connectivity across the country. Proposals are, and will continue to be, assessed case by case against strict climate, environmental and economic tests.
Amendment 114 would prevent the Secretary of State using powers under the Bill to support any expansion of airport capacity and go further, by requiring a reduction in capacity. That would remove the Government’s ability to respond to real capacity constraints, even where a scheme could meet the rigorous tests I have described. This Bill is not the vehicle for making those determinations. I therefore ask for Amendment 114 not to be pressed.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. It has been an interesting debate, and I think that how noble Lords view these amendments and powers may reflect which side of the debate one sits on in terms of airport expansion. On these Benches, we are clear that we oppose expansion of Heathrow and Gatwick. I am grateful for the half support from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for our amendments, though we clearly have different views on Heathrow expansion. We will now need to reflect on the Minister’s words—and, of course, the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement that, as has been discussed, has been published while we have been sitting—ahead of Report in any amendments that we may wish to table then. But on that basis, I agree to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 80 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Although this amendment sits in this group, there is considerable overlap with the amendments that I had on day one in Committee. This amendment would require the CAA to publish a disability impact assessment before implementing significant new regulations. The thought behind the amendment was to put disability rights higher up the priority list, while ensuring there is a better understanding of the needs of disabled people and that they receive both equal and equitable treatment. I am very interested in the Minister’s view on this amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this is a substantial group that touches on the constitutional and regulatory framework at the heart of the Bill. Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, would change the power in Section 61A(7) of the 1982 Act to the affirmative procedure, in line with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. This House takes those recommendations seriously and I am sure the Government do as well. When Parliament is being asked to delegate significant rule-making powers to the CAA, the least we should expect is meaningful parliamentary oversight of that delegation. I hope the Minister can support this.
Several of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in this group probe the curious decision to describe the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives as a document rather than guidance. He made some interesting points in that it has implications for the enforceability of the Bill. Amendment 83 asks that this document address connectivity between the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, which we strongly support.
Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, would require a disability impact assessment before significant new regulations and speaks to obligations that should be automatic—these are not optional. We should not have to say, in this day and age, that disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility deserve to have their needs considered systematically before regulations are made, not just retrofitted as an afterthought once a problem emerges. Yet the experience of disabled travellers tells a very different story. We have seen wheelchairs damaged or lost in transit, and passengers left on aircraft without explanation or assistance, long after others have disembarked. We have seen accessible services withdrawn or downgraded, with no prior assessment of the impact on those who depend on them. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect a culture in which the needs of disabled travellers are treated as a secondary consideration, rather than an absolute core service.
A disability impact assessment requirement before significant regulatory change would begin to change that culture. It would require the CAA to ask the right questions at the right time, to engage with disabled people and their representative organisations and to put on the record its assessment of how proposed rules will affect those with protected characteristics. This is not just a bureaucratic issue. It is the minimum standard we should expect of a modern regulator. We on these Benches strongly support the noble Baronesses in pressing this point, and we look forward to hearing a response from the Minister.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I note the comment just made. I welcome the probing amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harper. That is useful in the Bill, so I thank him for that.
I will speak to my Amendments 106 and 107. Together, they seek to form a coherent case for environmental accountability in the regulation of civil aviation. Amendment 106 asks the Secretary of State within 12 months of the Act passing to lay before Parliament a report assessing its impact on passenger information, on low-carbon travel choices and on emissions from civil aviation. The Bill contains important consumer protection measures, but a consumer framework is only as good as the information that it generates and the behaviour that it manages to change. The amendment asks a simple question: once the Act is on the statute book, how is it actually working?
My amendment calls for a report, which must address four things. First, it must address whether consumers are receiving clear and consistent information about the carbon emissions associated with their flights. Currently, there is no standard for presenting that, and the report would help to establish whether the Act drives progress. Secondly, it must address whether consumers are genuinely comparing aviation and rail options at the point of decision. At present, they largely cannot and booking platforms are entirely siloed. The integrated comparison of journey time door to door, total price and carbon footprint and the whole booking simplicity just barely exist for people who want to be able to do that. For short-haul routes, where rail is a credible alternative, this is a serious market failure. Thirdly, and relatedly, it must address whether consumer awareness of lower-carbon alternatives to short-haul flights has improved. Evidence from France and Sweden shows that better information helps to shift consumer behaviour. Fourthly, it must address the overall emissions trajectory of civil aviation, which, as we know, is one of the most difficult to decarbonise. Demand management, through better information, has an unavoidable role to play while sustainable aviation fuels and zero-emissions flight technology continue to mature.
The amendment would also require consultation with aviation, rail and consumer representatives. It would require the report to include recommendations, not merely descriptions. If the Act is working, the report will say so. If not, Parliament will have the information that it needs to act.
Amendment 107 addresses a related but distinct gap: the absence of any statutory environmental duty on the Civil Aviation Authority itself, particularly in relation to the new powers in the Bill. The duty that I am seeking is deliberately light touch. The amendment says that the CAA “must have regard to”. It does not override safety, does not prescribe outcomes and leaves the CAA to weigh its environmental responsibilities against its other functions. It would simply require those commitments to be present when decisions are made.
Three specific matters in subsection (2) are carefully drawn out: reducing greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts; supporting biodiversity and natural environment, consistent with the framework in the Environment Act 2021; and improving resilience in the aviation sector to the physical effects of our warming and changing climate. This would be in the form of an annual report, which would also be published to Parliament. It might be that the amendment is clunky and not acceptable because of how I have drafted it. I am more than happy to work with the Minister between now and Report. If there is a form of wording that could capture some of this in a better way, I am more than happy to discuss it.
Finally, I will speak to Amendment 115 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. This amendment is straightforward in its purpose. It seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations by statutory instrument to reduce carbon emissions from private aviation. These regulations could impose restrictions on private aircraft operations, impose changes on private aircraft movements, prohibit specific categories of movements and make different provisions for different classes of aircraft. This instrument would be subject to the negative procedure.
We have not talked about private aviation yet, but it is important. There is a compelling case here. Private jet movements in the United Kingdom have grown by over 40% since 2020. The carbon emissions per passenger of a private jet are on average five to 14 times higher than those of a commercial flight, yet private aviation sits entirely outside the consumer and environmental framework that this Bill seeks to create. That is a significant gap. The vast majority of private aviation growth is coming from short-haul flights and private aviation is a big part of that. It is in precisely these segments where we have the strongest leverage to change consumer action.
We cannot meet our obligations under the Climate Change Act, as have heard, without using some of those levers. Short-haul flights and private aviation are two of the matters that we need to move the dial on. On these Benches, we have considerable sympathy for the principles contained in this amendment and I welcome the challenge. However, I am not fully supportive of the drafting. The powers in subsection (2) of the new clause are substantial. They are broad, restrictive changes prohibiting entire categories of movements, yet subsection (3) subjects them only to the negative procedure. For powers of this reach, the affirmative procedure would provide more appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. We would welcome a clearer policy framework sitting behind the regulation-making powers, rather than leaving it entirely to ministerial direction.
To conclude, I hope that the Minister can tell the Committee what assessment the Government have made of private aviation emissions and whether a levy, perhaps proportionally hypothecated towards sustainable aviation, has been considered alongside perhaps a restrictions-based approach. How do the Government plan to regulate that sector, considering that it is not mentioned in the Bill?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments focuses rightly on the environment and climate impacts. My noble friend Lord Russell has set out clearly Amendments 106 and 107. They are modest, sensible asks and the Government should not find them difficult to accept, given that the aviation sector accounts for a significant and growing share of UK emissions and that it is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise. We strongly support my noble friend’s amendments and look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address this gap.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, between them, my noble friend Lord Harper and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have drawn attention to the unreality of this debate. Everything in this Committee and everything to do with this Bill is about growth—economic growth, building new airports, having a new runway at Heathrow and so on. However, elsewhere there are, as I mentioned, government policies and statutory commitments that are undeliverable unless that growth is restricted. It is a great advantage to the Committee that the two noble Lords between them have drawn attention to that.
My Amendment 111 asks for a review of the cost of sustainable aviation fuel and takes us back to the issue that we discussed when the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act was before your Lordships’ House.
Ministers have said that SAF costs are subject to fluctuation but are currently based on costs of £3.30 per litre for conventional SAF and approximately £4 per litre for power-to-liquid fuel. They have also set out estimated RAF market costs rising from £16.5 million in 2025 to £187 million by 2040 as a result of SAF. That has been reported as the RAF spending more than £1 billion over 15 years on switching to sustainable jet fuel. Wider commentary has suggested that sustainable aviation fuel can cost up to eight times as much as conventional jet fuel.
It matters because, as we know, the mandate requires an ever-increasing amount of SAF to be used by the commercial aviation sector. For passengers, it will mean higher fares, and therefore less demand. For airlines, it may mean higher operating costs, but also weaker competitiveness and a reduction in aviation activity. If the demand is falling, the number of planes in the air will be fewer, the number of destinations served will be fewer and the amount of regional connectivity that we can look forward to will be less.
If the Government are imposing this policy, they should be prepared to assess openly what it means for airfares, airline costs, public expenditure and national security for the UK. My amendment calls for the Government to make that assessment within two years—plenty of time—of the passing of the Bill and to publish it. It is the least they can do.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall briefly oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill. This is a wide-ranging Henry VIII power, and wholly unnecessary. In a letter sent by the Civil Service to the Delegated Powers Committee, civil servants identify every Act that this Bill interacts with and states that all amendments necessary are already made in the Bill. Why should the Government be seeking a Henry VIII power to amend even further legislation, yet unknown and undiscovered, when the case has been closed off already?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the Clause 10 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises a point of constitutional principle that the Committee will wish to consider carefully. I draw attention to subsection (6), which enables regulations to be implemented using the negative procedure. Have the Government considered whether the affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made under this clause, rather than only to those presently specified? Given that the power extends to modifying primary legislation, there is a reasonable case that every exercise of it should require the active approval of both Houses, rather than passing on the nod. Can the Minister confirm whether he is prepared to reflect further on that question before Report?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, opposes the inclusion of Clause 10 in the Bill. I recognise the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny where powers are taken to make consequential provision, particularly where those powers may be used to amend primary legislation. However, I reassure the noble Lord that this clause is both limited and appropriate. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not draw this clause to the attention of your Lordships’ House.
Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State a power to make consequential regulations so that the statute book properly reflects the changes made by the Bill. It is not a power to make substantive policy changes. The clause allows regulations to amend, appeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act passed before this Bill or later in the parliamentary Session, but only when that is consequential on the Bill. Importantly, where regulations made under this power amend or repeal primary legislation, they must be laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses under the affirmative procedure.
Such consequential powers are a common and practical feature of legislation used to ensure that the wider statute book works coherently once a Bill is enacted. In this case, the power is appropriately constrained and subject to the necessary parliamentary safeguards. Removing this clause would mean that the Government may need to rely on primary legislation to make minor changes and that, if there were delays, this could create inconsistencies in legislation and legal uncertainty.
I note the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to reflect on Clause 6. I will, of course, consider that further. For those reasons, the Government consider it necessary to retain this power, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition to Clause 10 standing part of the Bill.
King’s Speech
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really important debate on three fundamentals to our society: health, housing and transport. My noble friend Lady Thornhill talked in detail about the housing aspects in the gracious Speech and about concerns that the proposed legislation does not go far enough and that there is an absence of a coherent delivery plan. The noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, also set out some serious challenges in the area of housing. I will build on the excellent contributions from my noble friends Lord Bradshaw—with his decades of railway experience—Lady Tyler and Lady Walmsley.
On transport, these Benches support high-speed rail to Manchester and other northern cities to increase capacity, unlock local rail improvements and boost the economy. Clearly, getting Northern Powerhouse Rail from simply talk—which we have had since it was launched in 2014—to spades in the ground and passengers on trains on rails is critical. Can the Minister therefore advise which version of Northern Powerhouse Rail the Government are committing to? When will passengers be able to travel on any new lines as part of this project? Further, can we have some assurance that this is the end of U-turns and broken promises for our northern cities, which are desperate for greater connectivity? What learnings have there been from the challenges around delivering High Speed 2, which were highlighted earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin?
The Railways Bill establishing Great British Railways as a single accountable body to unite track and train management is a key part of the Minister’s work. On these Benches, we remain concerned that some proposals within the legislation may increase the potential for micromanagement and a power grab by a Secretary of State. But our main focus is on a passenger- centred railway that looks at growing the number of passengers and incentivises increased travel by rail, ensuring an affordable, reliable and accessible railway. I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister on this important Bill and hope we can see some amendments to deliver that ambition for passengers. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, rightly pointed out that this must deliver for all parts and deliver connectivity.
One concern for many people is the state of our roads and pavements. While the highways financing Bill looks to introduce a way to unlock private capital investment into major road infrastructure, we on these Benches wish to be assured that this delivers genuine value for money for taxpayers. Lessons must be learned from previous experiences, particularly in the case of Thames Water, where the model allowed the prioritisation of investor returns over public benefit. I hope the Minister can assure the House on this matter.
I am really pleased to see in the gracious Speech a draft taxi and private hire vehicle Bill. I worked closely with the Minister on the recent devolution legislation and helped to secure some provision for stronger enforcement across the country, and it became increasingly clear that a fundamental review was needed to bring the legislation into the 21st century. There are many concerns about the fragmented system that operates today, and I look forward to the planned consultation and engagement with drivers, the sector and passengers to increase safety and accessibility in this growing sector. Perhaps the Minister can advise on whether autonomous vehicles will be part of this pre-legislative scrutiny, given their growing presence and the timeline for the consultation.
The civil aviation Bill may be only a short Bill, but modernisation needs to work for all our communities and our environment, recognising that noise and air pollution has a significant impact on people and nature. We will look at this carefully to ensure that guardrails are in place for our communities that are affected by airports as they currently exist, let alone those that will be impacted by proposed expansions, which we clearly oppose, such as those at Heathrow and Gatwick. But lacking from the gracious Speech was detail about legislation to regulate and legalise e-bikes and e-scooters. That seems to us to be a missed opportunity, so I would like to hear more on that.
We have heard some strong contributions across the House on the health Bill—the NHS modernisation Bill—including from the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Neuberger. As we heard, the Bill will abolish NHS England as well as key organisations such as Healthwatch and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, and it will create the framework for the single patient record. But we believe that the government solution, which is to pass responsibilities from one group of civil servants to another, misses an opportunity to improve services for patients and the health of our country. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson and Lady Bray, highlighted, patients will feel little difference, and these reorganisations cost a lot of money, take time and lose memory from the workforce, and ultimately they will not change the front-line patient experience. We have seen this time and time again over the last few decades with different restructures. I say this as a former NHS employee who has lived through many of those reorganised bodies.
Health and care services, as we have heard, remain under significant strain. More than 6 million people are still waiting for care, and performance is well below the standard that 92% of patients should start treatment within 18 weeks. As my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lady Walmsley outlined so clearly, a real NHS reform Bill would fundamentally rewire the NHS and would have social care, mental health services, general practice and prevention at its heart. We need to stop so many people having to go to hospital and help them leave more quickly when they do. That means having accessible local services in the community, including social care and a new focus on early intervention, which we have heard much about this afternoon, to stop people getting so sick.
What seems to have united many contributions, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, is a single patient record. We will consider carefully the plans for this but, as we have heard, people are tired of having to reconfirm their medical histories over and over to different medical and other professionals. We would welcome different parts of the NHS and social care having access to that same patient information, but this has to come alongside new privacy protections through a new health data charter. The proof is clearly going to be in the detail, and we look forward to working with noble Lords to get that right.
Alongside the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others, we have deep concerns over the abolition of Healthwatch and the HSSIB. Let us take Healthwatch, for example: the Government are stripping patients of their voice in our NHS. Rather than being able to go to—crucially—an independent body to express how the NHS could work better for them, patients will now have to give feedback, either to their local trust or via ICBs or councils. We do not think a department or a director within the department is good enough or has the independence that is required to ensure that patient voices are genuinely heard. The decision to scrap the Health Services Safety Investigations Body is also a major concern; it is fraught with risk. A trusted and efficient safety investigation process is the best way of restoring trust, learning from system failure and preventing costly public inquiries. We hope that the Government will reconsider those proposals.
As articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, the elephant in the room—the glaring absence from this legislative programme—is social care. It is clear, not just from these Benches but from others, such as the King’s Fund, that:
“Interim action should not wait for the Casey Commission’s final recommendations”.
The King’s Fund goes further and comments:
“The legislative programme lacks ambitious action to tackle some of the other biggest causes of ill health, including obesity and alcohol harm, or to address deep health inequalities across the country. This raises questions about how the government’s promised shift to prevention will be delivered”.
The noble Lord, Lord Babudu, focused on prevention in his contribution as well. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, highlighted the need for prostate cancer screening as a way of prevention. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that area.
With a focus on reorganisation, there will be limited immediate difference in how patients experience health services, which is a huge concern. How does this Bill address the deep-rooted concerns about capacity and access to front-line health services, including mental health and social care services? That is the area in which we would like to see the focus of legislation, rather than rearranging and rebranding civil servants and NHS organisations.
This legislative programme is very full, and we on these Benches will be scrutinising each Bill in great detail to ensure that the passenger, the resident and the patient are truly at the heart of the Government’s proposed legislation.
Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(4 months, 1 week 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, port state control is the system used by the United Kingdom and other countries to inspect foreign-registered visiting ships to ensure that they meet the necessary international safety and pollution prevention standards. These regulations apply not to British ships but only to foreign-registered ones, to ensure that they meet the expected standards to operate safely in our waters.
The United Kingdom is a party to the Paris memorandum of understanding, the well-established collaborative regional agreement to co-ordinate this activity, with the aim of ensuring that international standards that reduce the risks to health, safety and the environment are met. It allows us to information-share and work with our neighbours to ensure the effective targeting of vessels to identify those that are substandard. The purpose of the proposed regulations is to replace and update the existing 2011 United Kingdom regulations on this subject and to reaffirm our commitment to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements by giving effect to them in UK law.
A four-week public consultation was carried out, during which responders expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency published a consultation report, including responses to comments received. Before the regulations were laid in draft, they were sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for informal pre-laying scrutiny. The JCSI provided drafting comments on the regulations at that stage and then formally considered them after they were laid and noted them without further comment. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has not drawn this instrument to the attention of the House.
The background to this statutory instrument is the Paris memorandum of understanding, which I understand dates from 1978 and is one of a number of collaborative regional agreements setting out a framework for carrying out port state control inspections globally. It is not a European Union agreement, although some parties are EU member states.
At the time when the 2011 regulations were made, the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union and the regulations were required to implement the relevant EU directive on port state control in accordance with the UK’s obligations as a member state. However, the UK remains a party to the Paris MoU and continues to maintain its commitments under the agreement as a non-EU member. The proposed regulations give effect to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements in UK law and update the list of conventions against which inspections are undertaken to include those to which the UK has become a party since the 2011 regulations were written, and which the UK will now also enforce against foreign ships visiting the UK.
These regulations also remove references to EU legislation, instead referencing the Paris MoU directly. This has had the effect of making the regulations longer than the 2011 regulations, but the relevant legislation is now contained just in a UK instrument. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, the proposed regulations also remove reliance on this power. While Merchant Shipping Act powers are also used to the fullest extent possible, it has been necessary to use the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers to fill some gaps before those powers expire next month.
I have set out the purpose and scope of these regulations: to update merchant shipping legislation and ensure it reflects the UK’s commitment to the Paris MoU. These regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards, not only for UK-registered ships but for all ships using UK ports, while tailoring the legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU exit context. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures and I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for their helpful briefing last week. As we have heard, this instrument revokes and replaces the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, which implemented the UK’s commitment under the Paris memorandum of understanding and the associated EU directive. As I learned from last week’s briefing, the Paris MoU obligates the UK to operate a regime of port state control for the monitoring, inspection and control of foreign-flagged ships calling at UK ports, to reduce the risks that such ships may pose to health, safety or the environment by ensuring that they meet relevant international standards. We have been part of the Paris MoU and its predecessor since the 1970s.
The MCA has around 100 inspectors and inspects around 1,300 ships a year. This instrument will mean that new maritime conventions are properly referenced and reports will be written in the international context, which will improve shipping safety. However, this SI shows just how much work there still is to amend legislation a decade after Brexit. Does the Minister agree that the time and effort that have to go into technical tweaks and amendments such as this distract from tackling other important issues and take up resource?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am very sorry to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, say that making laws for our own country, through our own processes, is somehow a distraction from what we should be doing, and that it would be better, presumably, if we were to hand this responsibility over to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I cannot say how much I would want to distance myself from such a position.
Since I have very little to say about the instrument, I shall add a little local colour. I did on one occasion seize an unseaworthy ship. When I was the third secretary in the British embassy in South Africa, I was the duty officer one weekend. In those days without mobile phones, that meant I had to stay home all weekend, very close to the telephone. Nothing ever happened but to my astonishment, I got a telephone call from the harbourmaster at Durban, saying that there was a British-registered vessel—or, rather, I think it was registered in some territory, dominion or whatever in the Caribbean that none the less fell under the Crown—in his port. It was so unseaworthy that he intended to seize and immobilise it but, apparently, he needed the permission of Her Majesty’s consul-general. I knew nothing about consular services, but there we were: I was the representative, for that weekend, of Her Majesty’s consul-general in South Africa. After a moment’s thought, I reached the conclusion that, on the whole, it was probably safer all round for me to say, “Yes, you have my authority to seize this vessel”, than to say no or prevaricate in any way—so that is what I did.
It has not happened since, but I am therefore not wholly unfamiliar with the idea that there is a degree of port inspection going on and that vessels not meeting appropriate standards are appropriately dealt with. This instrument affects no change whatever in current arrangements. It advertises itself as achieving no change in current arrangements, and that is absolutely fine. I have no objection to this instrument.
However, I will raise the same point that I raised when we discussed a statutory instrument—I think on aviation safety—a week or two ago. This instrument is made—the Minister said “in part”—using powers under the retained EU law Act. By common agreement, that Act expires in June. From that date onwards, we have no capacity to amend regulations of this sort, which are crucial in the world of transport. Statutory instruments are the normal means by which these regulations are made in the field of transport, but this spreads across the whole of Whitehall and many other departments as well. I say that we have no power to change them—we have no power to do so other than by primary legislation and Act of Parliament; we cannot use statutory instruments.
This failure of foresight on the part of the Government seems a massive dereliction of duty. Even if the Minister was able to assure us today that there will be legislation in the King’s Speech to correct this oversight—I fully appreciate it is unlikely that he can tell us today what will be in the King’s Speech—it is most unlikely that it will possible to pass it in both Houses and enact it by the end of June, when it will be necessary. As I say, I regard this as a massive dereliction of responsibility on the part of the Government, and I expect there to be serious potential consequences unless something is done.
Trains: Punctuality
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The prevailing culture on the British railway system for the past 30 years is to blame somebody else when things go wrong. That is why the Government have come forward with the proposition to create Great British Railways. As I know from my own experience of running Transport for London, you want somebody in charge who has nowhere to go who fixes problems. Autumn is regular—it happens every year—and so does winter and so does summer. The railway has plans that are altered according to the weather, and the weather is getting worse because of climate change. I am confident that the structure that we are going to put in will drive better performance in all those seasons.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what are the Government planning to do to put a stop to the current situation where Northern services in the north-west have had their timetable cut by half on Sundays, because Sundays fall outside of conductors’ regular working week? When will that be resolved so that passengers can travel by train whatever the season and whatever the day of the week?
Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the Minister mentioned, has looked at this and suggested that the House may wish to seek assurances from the Minister regarding the use of exemptions. In the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday, the Minister said:
“I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]
The issue that I wish to question the Minister on is the capacity of the CAA to handle the various applications. Will he also address the issue of the testing by companies of new products, either aircraft or drones? We know of public events where there are a large number of helicopter flights coming in—golf tournaments, for example; I do not know whether Glastonbury has a lot of helicopter traffic—and I presume that these are covered by this sort of thing.
Without wishing to see things kept overly tight, particularly when we would like to see and encourage companies to develop new products—after all, this country has a tried and tested record of innovation in the aviation sector—the question is: who is overseeing the overseers in this case? I presume it has to be the CAA and the Department for Transport, ultimately, but is there sufficient capacity? Does the Minister expect an increase in these applications, or will it be only short term? If he does, is the capacity there and is his department sufficiently well organised to oversee that process?
The issue, I presume, comes down to the definition of “exceptional”. The Minister in the other place said:
“The shadow Minister asked me to say a little more about what we mean by ‘exceptional’. These exceptions will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way for the applicant to achieve the aims that have been put forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]
He went on to give some examples.
This is a fairly straightforward regulation, but whenever regulations change there is always the risk that the organisation overseeing them may not be as fully prepared as we would like. I perfectly understand the Minister’s position on the powers that have not been used; it seems that there are alternative ways of dealing with those matters without having to regulate any further.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, these regulations will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to exempt industry from certain safety requirements to allow for such things as greater research and development, as well as allowing increased air traffic control for one-off major events with increased air traffic. I thank the Minister for arranging a briefing with his officials, who answered my questions and provided clarity on a number of matters. I was really pleased to read the CAA exemption policy, which makes it clear that:
“When considering whether or not to issue an exemption, the CAA’s starting point will be that the requirements exist for good reasons and exemptions should therefore be exceptional. We will only issue an exemption on the basis of this Policy if to do so will maintain a high standard of safety, having regard to the safety of all aircraft, crew, passengers and persons on the ground”.
I was also pleased to hear the Minister’s assurance regarding risk assessments. Those points should assure us all.
We on these Benches support greater research and development in aviation, which these changes will allow. The regulations will allow the CAA to issue more exemptions, although within those safeguards, around trialling new aircraft and testing uncrewed aircraft or new fuel types and technology. In recent years, we have seen rapid developments in aviation technology, particularly in uncrewed aircraft. It is important that the UK is not left behind, but it will be essential that the CAA does not overuse these increased powers. Therefore, my only question for the Minister is: could he clarify what criteria have been drawn up by the department to set clear guardrails for how the CAA can use these powers and then report on their use?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for arranging a short briefing for me yesterday on this measure, which I found very helpful. That was a useful thing to do and I thank him.
The substance of this statutory instrument is not terribly interesting. We could go on about whether the CAA could be trusted to do its job, and exactly how you might define exemptions, but these issues have been raised in the course of debate; there is no point in my belabouring them. Generally speaking, I trust the CAA to do the job that it has done so well for so many years. I do not see any reason to think that it will go wild and start indulging in or approving unsafe practices in the near future.
I think that there are more interesting things about this statutory instrument that relate to its circumstances. The first circumstance that we want to take account of is the EU reset. The third clause of this instrument—the second operative clause in this instrument—is undoubtedly a Brexit benefit. It is a relaxation of regulation that could not be brought about had we remained a member of the European Union. The Minister has said this. I am not making a controversial point. We are doing this in a context where the Government have said, without any mandate, that they want to align our laws with the European Union, making us subject to laws that they make without any consideration of what the benefits might be for us. These advantages that we are getting today by passing this statutory instrument could be yanked away at any moment in the next year or so as the reset starts to bite.
Rail Freight
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Railways Bill is framed to give Great British Railways the authority, for the first time in over 30 years, to control access to the railway and make sure that it is fairly distributed and serves the nation’s economic and social purposes. That is in Clause 60. Clause 63 talks about GBR operating passenger services. The reason that the freight target is specified in the Bill is so that GBR will have the obligation to leave both freight paths that are used in the timetable for freight trains and those paths that are not used but will be needed for the expansion of freight services and are needed at short notice to be used by freight operators.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what consideration are the Government giving to increasing the capacity at London Gateway, Britain’s second largest container port, by the electrification of just three miles of track to the port, which would allow for the use of faster electric locomotives for freight?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Baroness asked me that question. Network Rail has found some money to do studies on greater access to London Gateway, and that is the right thing to do. The question of electrification is one of the subjects that we need to discuss with the port’s owners, DP World. The other subject is the level crossings, which are probably a greater barrier to more freight trains there. I have recently written to the local district council about this, and my department is looking to have a meeting with DP World, Network Rail and the freight operators to decide how best to take that forward.
Public Transport: Accessibility
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure public transport is fully accessible.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to improving public transport services so they enable disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. The Bus Services Act 2025 and the Railways Bill both include a comprehensive package of measures to improve the accessibility of public transport. We have also committed to developing an accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local transport authorities, driving improvement towards a barrier-free transport system.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given that the Government have cancelled a significant number of Access for All schemes which had not been fully funded, will the Minister commit to a replacement long-term programme of accessibility works on the railway to ensure that there is a pipeline of improvements, and to help the supply chain have the confidence to invest in this area?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The oldest railway in the world still needs better accessibility at many stations, between platforms and trains, and in information and customer service. We have committed to more Access for All schemes at stations following the recent spending review and intend to set out clearer criteria for future such schemes, which we would expect to fund in future spending reviews and with third-party contributions. The long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy will embrace easier access on to and within trains. The results of all this will produce a clearer future pipeline for the supply chain.
Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations so thoroughly. We on these Benches welcome the statutory instrument, which presents a pragmatic, evidence-based approach to modernising our railway workforce and opening up highly skilled and well-paid careers to the next generation.
For too long, the arbitrary age limit of 20 has meant that the rail industry has lost out on bright, capable school leavers who, when they finish their education at 18, have been forced to seek opportunities in other sectors. As we have heard, we are facing a demographic cliff edge in the railway in terms of age, while trying to make sure we have a workforce that represents the whole of our communities. That is really important. The statutory instrument allows for earlier training and that new talent pipeline. It is good to see that we are aligning ourselves with our European neighbours.
We need to take into account, though, the perspectives of those who operate our trains every day. Looking at the consultation, there were quite high numbers of respondents concerned about this, particularly current train drivers. I would therefore like to ask the Minister a few questions.
First, how is this going to be publicised? The Train Drivers Academy is going to have this comprehensive communications campaign, online guidance and so on, but how are the Government going to support the industry in co-ordinating this new outreach to attract new applicants? Secondly, can the Minister explain how the Government will work closely with the industry to reassure the existing workforce, who have expressed some concerns, and ensure that any issues are addressed? In achieving the policy objectives outlined in the post-implementation review, can the Minister outline additional measures the Government are actively considering, apart from this regulation, to promote rail careers and ensure that broader, diverse pipeline of workers in the sector? As long as this does not compromise rigorous recruitment and assessment processes, as the Minister has set out, and has high medical standards and so on, we gladly support this measure to empower our young people and secure the future of our rail workforce.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly his succinct response to the issues raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is good to have those comments on the record. It also saves me the trouble of asking all the questions that it asked and pressing him to give answers in his wrap-up. That has considerably shortened the remarks I entered the Room with.
On my part and on behalf of the Conservative Party, we wholly welcome this statutory instrument and the development it contains. It was, in fact, a Conservative initiative, as the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks. It is always good to have new measures that help youth employment at a time when youth unemployment is rising so dramatically under the current Government.
However, while I welcome the regulations wholeheartedly and without reservation, and while I think they are a very good thing in principle, I have slight doubts about whether they are going to make an enormous difference in practice. First, as the Government say, there is already a strong demand for train driver roles. Lots of people want to be train drivers, yet the fact is that the workforce is very restrictive. The Minister mentioned the retirement profile that is approaching, and I do not need to repeat that, but as far as I am aware, the average age is 47. Less than 3% are under 30, and women make up less than 11%. I wonder what has brought that about. It is not the restriction from the age of 20 that is causing that, and moving it to 18 is unlikely to change it, especially given that these are well-paid roles for which there is a great deal of demand.
What is in the process of happening as a result of the Government’s policies is that the Government are becoming the employer. The Government might say that Great British Rail is becoming the employer, but that does not exist and will not exists for several years at the rate things are going. The Government themselves—the Department for Transport, through its subsidiary companies—are the employer. So trying to understand, trying to tackle the root explanations for this strange profile in the workforce with a view to opening up the demographic of our train drivers, is a responsibility that falls squarely on the Government. I have not heard the Minister say what, as an employer, the Government are going to do about that.
I welcome that he has explained, I think quite convincingly, what he is going to do to make it easier for 16 to 18 year-olds to get on track in this direction, but what are they going to do about the existing profile of the workforce? How are they going to get people of other ages, who might be in their mid-20s or who might have done some other role, to enter the workforce at that stage—urgently—and get involved, given the cliff edge that we are promoting?
There are serious issues. We know that the workforce has tended to be restrictive about how one can enter it, and that its general profile is not reflective of the population at large. While I am not encouraging diversity for the sake of diversity, some of the problems we have are because the pool has been very narrow and widening it from 20 to 18 is not the key issue that will resolve it.
The Government’s impact assessment states that they have looked at other countries, including France, Germany and the Netherlands. If the Government are looking to other countries, they might also look to other working practices that need changing. One example is Sunday working, which in many countries is built into the contracts of train drivers. That is not so here, and we are dependent on voluntary overtime for Sunday running of the trains. It would be useful to know what the Government are thinking of doing about this as part of their general workforce programme, now that they are the employer.
On the question of age, I come back to the issue of Transport for London. The Government said that the age limit of 18 already applied at Transport for London, which is true, yet, as far as I can see, there are very few young drivers at Transport for London. We have the problem that, according to a freedom of information request, Transport for London does not currently employ a single train operator under the age of 23, and that person is a bit of an outlier anyway. Similar problems exist at Transport for London regarding retirement cliff edges, even though they operate this lower age limit for entry.
The general verdict is that we are in favour of the lower age limit and we recognise the problem, but we do not think this is enough. The Government will have to go a great deal further to solve the problems that the Minister set out in his opening remarks.