English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for not being at Second Reading, but I care deeply about these issues. Amendments 104A and 105A seek to ensure that, when we talk about micromobility vehicles in this Bill, we do not inadvertently exclude those used for delivery services. These services are now a major and growing part of daily life, whether that is food delivered by bicycle, parcels carried by e-bikes or goods transported by small vans. These services are economically and socially important, but they also have a very real impact on our streets and pavements, which is already being felt.

For example, food delivery has nearly doubled since 2019—as have parcel deliveries by vans, albeit over a longer period—yet local authorities currently lack clear powers to manage how those services operate in public space, particularly where micromobility vehicles are concerned. The Government’s guidance on this Bill recognises that the regulatory framework may need to expand in future, for example to include e-scooters or pavement delivery devices if they begin to block pavements or disrupt shared space, but that future is already here. Local authorities and communities are experiencing these pressures today.

In Committee in the Commons, it was directly raised whether what are now Clause 23 and Schedule 5 could be broadened to cover delivery vehicles. The Minister acknowledged that similar vehicles are already causing problems on our streets and said that the issue would be taken away and considered. I would be grateful to hear the outcome of those considerations today. If we miss this opportunity now, it could be many years before Parliament returns to this topic. We need only look at pedicabs to see how long such delays can last. Transport for London first sought powers in 2005; even now, those powers are not fully in force.

With these amendments, any use of these powers would still require secondary legislation and, crucially, be entirely optional for local authorities. The intention is to ensure that councils can take action where problems arise. That flexibility matters. In city centres, licensing could be used to address issues such as illegal e-bikes, pavement obstruction, unsafe riding and polluting vans, which are now the largest source of air pollution in central London. In rural or sensitive areas, a different approach might be taken, such as permit systems to encourage consolidation of deliveries or to manage speeds on narrow rural lanes. There are also important issues around safety and workers’ rights. Research from University College London found that freelance delivery workers are three times more likely to feel pressured to take safety risks or dangerous risks compared with employed drivers. Giving local authorities the tools to shape how delivery services operate could help to address these concerns.

Ultimately, these amendments are about empowering local decision-making. They would ensure that delivery services using micromobility vehicles are not accidentally carved out of a framework that is designed precisely to manage competing demands on shared space. I hope that the Minister will accept them or, at the very least, give a clear assurance that delivery services will be brought within scope at the earliest possible opportunity. Without that, we risk leaving our local authorities powerless in the face of challenges that they are already struggling to manage. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. Amendments 108 and 109 would place stronger requirements on traffic authorities with regards to parking and docking, and Amendment 113 would expand the duty to co-operate to Great British Railways and other relevant bodies. I am grateful to the charity CoMoUK for its advice in this area.

This Bill is a welcome opportunity to start the long-overdue management and regulation of micromobility schemes and to reduce any negative impacts. Any noble Lord who has sat through many of the Committee days of the current police Bill will have heard arguments made and concerns expressed about bikes and scooters cluttering our pavements and about the lack of regulation—that is seen in the number of amendments today. This Bill is an opportunity to deal with these issues.

Amendments 108 and 109 would require traffic authorities to provide parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the right level. The proposed legal duty for highways authorities to merely “co-operate” with strategic authorities is weak. There is a risk that authorities will fail to provide sufficient parking spaces for micromobility vehicles. I understand that there are existing cases of the relevant authorities refusing to provide any bike-share parking space at all. This will limit the potential of micromobility to serve the public and will risk micromobility vehicles becoming a public inconvenience through inappropriate parking, as we currently see across our cities.

In addition to the duty to co-operate, it is important that traffic authorities have a duty to provide parking at sufficient densities, with density standards defined by the licensing regulations and guidance that this Bill outlines. Guidance should emphasise that, where possible, parking should be on the carriageway—perhaps replacing a private car parking space—strengthening the role of micromobility in the shift away from private car ownership and supporting the Government’s goals around active travel, clean air and climate.

I will expand on this a little more. It is important that the Bill gets parking right as, on the one hand, the planning of parking locations has a huge impact on how convenient shared micromobility is to use and therefore how much the public can benefit from it. On the other hand, as we hear regularly, poorly planned parking can be the source of so many problems, such as obstructing pavements, that this Bill aims to resolve.

As the Bill is currently written, the authority that gives out licences is not the authority responsible for parking, which creates that risk of mismatch between the number of bikes licensed and the quantity of parking available. These amendments aim to ensure that traffic authorities work in a co-ordinated way with licensing authorities to provide that appropriate level of parking. Density and quality standards outlined in guidance would support those traffic authorities to understand what is needed. If we do not tackle this tension, we will continue the chaos that we see on our pavements and streets, which benefits no one.

Amendment 113 would require Great British Railways, National Highways and other public bodies to co-operate with the licensing authority on micromobility vehicles and the connectivity with other modes of transport. The creation of Great British Railways in particular is a huge opportunity to integrate between rail and other forms of transport. Parking at stations for shared micromobility would make connections easier for passengers. Research that CoMoUK carried out showed that 21% of active bike-share users combine their most common bike-share trips with a train ride.

Similarly, having shared micromobility parking near bus stations improves the potential for interchange, while parking at or near NHS sites—hospitals and the like—and schools can improve access for those travelling for health, education or employment in a public service. Co-operation between bodies is essential to fully realise these benefits and to enable more people to choose active travel modes for more journeys.

An amendment tabled to one of my amendments suggests removing the word “sufficient”. This would leave a gap in the legislation that would allow an authority to say, “Well, we’ve provided one parking space, and that is enough for the micromobility in our borough or area”. So “sufficient” is a crucial word that would allow a proper assessment of need and demand and allow proper provision. I hope that the Minister has been looking into this and I look forward to his response with interest, particularly as these are such delicate issues on our highways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

That is really interesting, is it not? I am sure the Minister will tell us exactly what all that means.

I am one of those people who challenge people who park on the pavement. Just recently, I saw a huge van parked all the way across a pavement. I went up to challenge the driver and found that it was an ambulance, so I did back off because I thought somebody needed some help. I totally agree that pavement parking means that the kerbside degenerates; it gets broken, which means yet another hazard for all of us, not just for people who are not particularly mobile, at night and so on.

I hugely admire the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but he should not be parking on the pavement. I do not care that the road is too small. He should park in a legal place and walk the rest of the way. It would be really good for his heart. The thing about pavement parking is that, if your car is too wide to park on the road, your car is too wide. Get a smaller car—do not take up space that pedestrians need. I see no rationale or excuse for that. It is just plain rude, and I loathe it.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendment 238, as she cannot be here today. Local authorities currently have civil enforcement powers which enable council officers to enforce parking contraventions on the highway, such as parking on a bend, across a driveway or too close to a junction. They have the power to impose penalty charge notices. This Bill will enable these powers to be taken by a mayor, which in my noble friend’s opinion will result in a less accountable system as mayoral authorities are likely to have populations of around 1 million.

This amendment seeks to achieve a retention of civil enforcement powers by local authorities and, more importantly, contains a provision to extend the powers to other highway infringements such as speeding on local roads—those which are not A or B roads. I understand that in the past my noble friend looked to table a Motion in the ballot to enable local authorities to enforce speeding problems on residential roads, which had huge support from the Local Government Association, London Councils and many boroughs. That is why she tabled this amendment, so I hope the Minister can respond to that point.

We have had a really interesting discussion about Amendment 121A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. The noble Lord, Lord Young, made a really good point, to which I hope the Minister can respond. It is an anomaly. Outside London, while it is an offence to drive on the pavement, it is not a specific offence to park on a pavement in most instances. This amendment tries to resolve this.

We have had briefings, as the Committee has heard, from the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, and I have had a briefing from Guide Dogs about this issue. According to Guide Dogs, four in five blind or partially sighted people have said that pavement parking makes it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week and over 95% have been forced to walk in the road because of pavement parking, so, as we have heard, this is a serious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, refers to the fact that five years ago the Department for Transport conducted a consultation, and we had the results in on 8 January. I believe this is the legislative opportunity for the Government—that is, if they need one, and if they do not, I hope the Minister can clarify that—and it clearly has cross-party support. It is important that we look to resolve this anomaly as soon as possible.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, on Amendment 114A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the Bill does not provide powers to combined authorities or combined county authorities in respect of parking provision. As parking restrictions inherently apply with localised variations, the same imperative for consistent enforcement does not arise across a combined authority and combined county authority area, as is otherwise the case for the enforcement of bus lanes and other moving traffic restrictions. Civil parking enforcement powers are not considered to be appropriate at combined authority and combined county authority level. The Bill provides combined authorities and combined county authorities only with the ability to take on powers to enforce on a civil basis contraventions of bus lane and moving traffic restrictions with the agreement of the constituent local authorities.

The amendment would have no effect because combined authorities and county combined authorities are not defined as local authorities under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That provision limits the power to make traffic regulation orders for paid on-street parking to specific bodies: county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan district councils, London boroughs, the Common Council of the City of London and Transport for London. The use of any surplus revenue from the designation of parking places is strictly ring-fenced under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for local authority-funded environmental measures and public transport schemes. This important principle will apply equally to combined authorities and combined county authorities for bus lane and moving traffic contraventions, which is appropriate in the interests of consistency and already dealt with in the regulations.

I turn to Amendment 121A, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Bassam and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others. I welcome my noble friend’s interest in this matter and I share the concerns that the amendment seeks to address. Vehicles parked on the pavement can cause serious problems for all pedestrians, especially people with mobility or sight impairments, as we have heard, as well as those with prams and pushchairs and of course in wheelchairs.

On 8 January this year, my department published a formal response to the 2020 public consultation on pavement parking, summarising the views received and announcing the Government’s next steps of pavement parking policy. We plan to give local authorities power later in 2026 to issue penalty charge notices for vehicles parked in a way that unnecessarily obstructs the pavement. That offence already exists and can be enforced by the police, but making it enforceable on a civil basis can be achieved through secondary legislation and will clearly be welcome.

In addition, and I hope this answers the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the Government have announced our intention to make primary legislation to give powers to local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking in their area. That will allow the highest tier of local government in an area to prohibit pavement parking, with exemptions for vehicle classes and streets where necessary. This will ensure accessibility on pavements for all pedestrians, including, as we have heard, some of our most vulnerable pavement users.

This is a complex area. Due consideration needs to be given to a range of matters, including how local transport authorities enact a prohibition, which vehicles might be excluded, permissible defences for parking on the pavement in a prohibited area and the governance by which local transport authorities decide to implement a prohibition.

I am grateful to my noble friend for his efforts to move this matter forward, and I agree that the amendment captures the overall intent of the policy to create new devolved powers to prohibit pavement parking in the interests of all pavement and road users. The Government intend to bring forward legislation to enable this at the earliest opportunity, and I believe that my noble friend’s amendment may need only small drafting changes to allow it to fully represent the Government’s position. I am happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this matter further.

In respect of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about parking on cycleways, it is already an offence to park on a cycle track.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

The answer is largely yes, although the provisions under the Highways Act get into the use of adjoining land and the circumstances in which adjoining land might be used, particularly for bypasses related to cattle grids. However, the intent of the amendment is absolutely to tease out where the Government are on cattle grids on highways.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group, and I shall speak to just a few of them. The last two speakers have outlined that if this Bill is truly about devolution, it should be empowering local authorities to make decisions for their area without having to apply to Whitehall. From Amendment 236 from my noble friend Lord Pack about the decision to install a cattle grid in an area to the speeches we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about workplace parking levies or applying for a Transport and Works Act order, what is the best level for this? In many ways, these are small amendments, but they go to the heart of the Bill. Is this about genuine devolution and empowerment, or is it a little bit of decentralisation from Whitehall but still with the reins attached? That was one of the criticisms we made at Second Reading.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has had to leave, but I shall speak on his behalf on Amendments 120D and 120E. He apologises to noble Lords for not having taken part before, due to working on other Bills at the same time that have been clashing. Noble Lords will remember the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, now the Bus Services Act. These amendments were tabled by the noble Lord at that time, and we were told:

“The Government will look to utilise these principles in their delivery of the forthcoming road safety strategy. This strategy will lay the foundation for government leadership while providing flexibility for local authorities to determine the most appropriate approach for their local circumstances”.—[Official Report, 13/10/25; col. 90.]


However, according to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the long-awaited road safety strategy is rather coy on bus safety, mentioning the Act and what TfL is doing and then saying:

“Safety measures could then be specified as part of franchising contracts”.


The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is concerned that it seems as though local authorities might move forward in this safety area in some way only if they are minded to do so, whereas, in London, we see that TfL has the Vision Zero strategy, which aims to eliminate all deaths and serious injuries from the transport network by 2041 and to have no one killed on or by a bus by 2030. Surely these things should be baked into all future transport contracts nationwide. The noble Lord is right to flag up this issue. The road safety strategy is an excellent document in so many areas, but in this area of bus safety it has fallen short of what we all hoped for from the bus services Bill. I hope that the Minister can address our points about devolution and bus safety, as well as about making sure that we are tackling these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My noble friend makes a good point. If the Secretary of State were to ask Great British Railways to enter into that agreement with Transport for London, I do not know who would be the operator of the passenger rail services concerned. It might be Great British Railways, because Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 clearly envisages payment for this. That could be to GBR, in exactly in the same way as it has been in the past to Great Northern or any other operator.

The point is that the agreement under the 2005 legislation enables passenger transport executives to enter into agreements with the franchise operators to run those services. As far as I can see, that is not being taken away, as long as the legal authority is not transferred to the mayor. What my noble friend Lord Moylan is correctly saying about the current legal status of TfL is not what can be reproduced in relation to Great Northern in suburban services, as far as I am aware.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Lansley, are really testing the provision for rail devolution for passenger rail services and its legal status. It has been a really interesting discussion.

The Government’s White Paper said:

“Mayors will be given a statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network. In addition to partnerships with Great British Railways, Mayors of Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities will have a clear right to request greater devolution of services, infrastructure and station control where it would support a more integrated network”.


I am not sure that anything before us today goes that far. When we debated the public ownership legislation, I kept talking about Manchester being really keen to extend the Bee Network. I was doing my weekly reading of the rail press earlier today and there was a picture of a lovely branded Bee Network train up in Manchester. They are keen to move forward with that. In response to my amendments on rail devolution on Report of that Bill, the Minister said,

“this Government are absolutely committed to strengthening the role of local leaders and local communities in shaping the provision of rail services in their areas … I can reaffirm to your Lordships’ House that the railways Bill will include a statutory role for devolved governments and mayoral combined authorities”.”.—[Official Report, 6/11/24; col. 1543.]

Yet when I look in the Railways Bill and at what is before us today, I am not sure that the Government have gone as far as they promised at that stage of that earlier legislation. What has changed? Can the Minister assure us that they are not rowing back on rail devolution? Has there been a change of heart or are we all slightly misinterpreting it and will we see far more rail devolution across the country, whether to Manchester, London or other regions?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, on Amendments 120 and 120EA, via provisions in the Transport Act 1968, mayoral combined authorities with passenger transport executive functions already have the appropriate powers as envisaged by Amendment 120. These are the combined authorities of West Yorkshire, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, North East England and South Yorkshire. They either have passenger transport executives acting on their behalf in relation to rail functions or have had the powers of passenger transport executives transferred to them.

Other mayoral combined authorities do not have these powers. Instead, via the Transport Act 1985, they can secure and subsidise services where the public transport requirements in their area would not otherwise be met. The Government have the powers to confer new functions on strategic authorities, individually or as a class. This includes the powers in Schedule 25 to this Bill, which enable the Secretary of State to confer new functions on strategic authorities on a permanent or pilot basis. Therefore, should an authority require these powers, there are mechanisms in place to achieve it.

Amendment 120EA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would not be an appropriate mechanism to enable further devolution to establish mayoral strategic authorities. The heart of the matter is that, for example, where services have been devolved, such as Merseyrail in the Liverpool City Region, this has been achieved by the exemption of services from designation by the Secretary of State under Section 24 of the 1993 Act. After the Great British Railways Act is passed, the Secretary of State will not be the franchising authority, so Section 13 of the 2005 Act will not be the appropriate mechanism. I hope that this answers the noble Lord.

It is anticipated that Great British Railways and mayoral strategic authorities will deliver a new place-based partnership model to deliver on local priorities. This will bring the railway closer to communities, enable collaboration and shared objectives and improve multimodal integration and opportunities for local investment. The depth of partnership will vary depending on local priorities, on capability and also, very significantly, on the geography of the railway, which seldom accords with local government boundaries.

The Government are open to considering further devolution of rail responsibilities should an authority make the case for it. I referred earlier to the Mayor of London’s proposal to take over the Great Northern inner suburban services. If operations are devolved, mayoral authorities will have a choice on how the operations are performed—either through Great British Railways or another operator. The Department for Transport recently published guidance on this topic. In making a decision in response to a request for devolution, key considerations will include the financial and commercial implications, the capability and the geography. The impacts on neighbouring services and communities beyond the combined authority boundary will also need to be factored in. I hope that this is clear and enables the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Nationalised Passenger Rail Services

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The discussion on the forthcoming Railways Bill will happen in this House in due course. Meanwhile, the Government are pursuing reliability very strongly. If a train company is left, by a combination of the previous Government and the previous operator, desperately short of drivers, with 83 of 90 new trains parked in sidings for nearly five years, it takes a bit of time to recover from that position. That position is being recovered from, in respect of South Western. More than 30 of the new trains are now in service, and two-thirds of the drivers have now been trained to drive them. That takes time. It should have been done before, but it is now being done by this Government.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, what progress has been made to address the poor Sunday levels of service and high levels of Sunday cancellations as part of train operator nationalisation? Can the Minister say when passengers can hope to see any improvements in Sunday services?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Sunday position, particularly for drivers in a number of train companies, is very difficult. A number of them, after 30-odd years of the previous regime, have no contractual commitment to work on Sundays and volunteer. That is unsatisfactory. In several train companies, negotiations are taking place to incorporate Sundays into the working week.

In the case of Northern, where a dispute about guards has been going on for seven years, Sunday services have never been satisfactory because there are a number of guards in that company who have never been contractually obliged to work Sundays. We have worked extraordinarily hard with the management of Northern, and I hope that will come to a conclusion very shortly.

Number Plates Intended to Defeat Enforcement Cameras

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I second my noble friend’s congratulations to Sarah Coombes on raising this important subject. The DVLA is already on the case to strengthen the application process to become a registered number plate supplier and to make it more robust. Options being considered include, as my noble friend remarked, the fee level, the structure, eligibility criteria, and much greater enforcement.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, what discussions are the Government having with major online retailers about preventing the sale of illegal number plates, and what is the Government’s assessment of the scale of this problem?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The actions taken by the Government include considering online sales of number plates, which is clearly one source of illegal number plates. As to the scale and for an example: in 1,000 vehicle checks carried out by the Metropolitan Police with Transport for London in March 2023 using cameras which are able to detect ghost number plates, 41% of licensed taxis and private hire vehicles were found to have non-compliant plates.

Motorway Speed Cameras

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

We estimate that approximately 2,650 incorrect activations took place between 2021 and now, and we are checking further back. The number of drivers affected is considerably lower, as not every activation resulted in enforcement. The relevant police forces will contact those affected directly with details on what action is being taken to provide redress. All those notified by the police will receive details on how to contact National Highways if they have evidence of costs associated with this incorrect enforcement—for example, those associated with licence loss.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, will the independent review look at how long the highways agency has known about this defect in its speed cameras? What confidence do the Government have that speed cameras on other roads are not affected?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I can confirm that the review will look at the time it took between first knowledge and public action. We remain very confident that this is both a subset of speed cameras and a subset of variable speed signs, and that it applies only to some motorways and, I think, two A roads.

Great Western Railway: Infrastructure

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The truth is that the whole railway network has to be adapted to weather that was once exceptional and is now common- place. The budget for Network Rail, as the current infrastructure owner, was at least quadrupled compared with 2019 to 2024, precisely to cope with that. I am sure that the new lines, such as HS2 and the Liverpool to Manchester line, will be built with that mind, but our greater preoccupation at the moment is our existing railway and its reliability.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, recent reports in the press have highlighted the serious shortages of carriages on Great Western Railway services, with one in three engines not functioning properly due to fuel pump issues. What are the Government doing to ensure a fully operating service now, as well as when the Government start to directly run this part of the railway?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is completely right. At one stage, out of the total train fleet for long-distance services, with 400-odd engines in those trains, some 110 of them were not functioning due to a fault that appears to be something to do with fuel supply and fuel pumps. The good news is that the number is now down to 38. I am very frustrated by the time it has taken to fix them, but they are being fixed.

Northern Powerhouse Rail

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buses: Safety and Security

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

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

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

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

Channel Tunnel Infrastructure: Reliability

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

Clause 1(7) states:

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


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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

“a degree of flexibility is required”,

it regards

“the lack of specificity in the Bill”

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

“as a potential inhibitor of detailed legislative scrutiny”.

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

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

Walking, Wheeling and Cycling Paths

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

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

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

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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