Railways Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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 Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

As I have said, the environment is mentioned as part of that. The details come from what is called ECAC.CEAC Doc 29—some of your Lordships will know what I mean. We already comply with all the details that come from those regulations and documents. It is not as though there are no references and that we are not compliant with environmental issues and pressures at this time. We also have to recognise that, fortunately, because of our excellent scientists and engineers, we know that the minimum engine type operating at these airports is a chapter 4 engine. Again, our airports have to be compliant with the rules laid down by ICAO. We are obviously obliged to comply with international rules and regulations from those bodies, and we certainly do in the United Kingdom.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

69: Clause 7, page 8, line 16, at end insert—
“(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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 69 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[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

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

[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

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Grand Committee

[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

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[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

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

Rail Infrastructure Resilience: Storms and Floods

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

As an engineer, my noble friend will know that Brunel built the railway around the south Devon coast in 1846 and that it has been under attack by the tides and weather ever since. The most serious closure was of nearly 60 days in 2014, and that was remedied by a large-scale investment project that spent £165 million. That resulted in a railway that was sufficiently resilient to remain closed for only 36 hours earlier this year, despite terrible weather.

The citizens of Devon and Cornwall can be quite comfortable that the future resilience of the railway is being looked after. The alternative route, which stopped operation some 60 years ago, in fact closed temporarily for a much longer period due to the heaviest rainfall ever recorded in the south-west. It would not be a sufficiently resilient route, even if it could be afforded to be rebuilt.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, I start by wishing the Minister a happy birthday—

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, first, I wish the Minister a happy birthday. As we have been discussing, extreme weather is our new reality, leading to the Tarka line, which links Barnstaple to Exeter in the south-west, already being closed for 24 days this year as a result of the recent storms. Will the Government commit to increased investment to help our railways adapt to the new climate and to keep passengers moving, whatever the weather?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her good wishes. There have been quite a lot of birthdays in my life so far. The Tarka line is part of what was the Southern route around the northern edge of Dartmoor. The highest rainfall ever in the south-west of England closed the line for a long period of time simply because the bridges had to be inspected to make sure that they were safe for traffic. There was a terrible accident some 40 years ago in Wales, when a bridge collapsed due to erosion after a storm. I can reassure the noble Baroness that Network Rail is looking at some advanced sensor technology in order not to have to wait for rivers to subside sufficiently for divers to inspect the foundations of bridges. That is a fairly modest expenditure, and I think it will help the resilience of the lines to Barnstaple and Okehampton.