Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I share those concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others have forensically dissected this clause and demonstrated that it is, to use a technical term, a right mess.

Manor Castle is in Sheffield, for those who do not know. Sheffield is a city which has suffered enormously from the destruction of heritage, both industrial and earlier heritage. On this last day, I take your Lordships to August 1644, when there was a 10-day siege of Sheffield Castle. The castle fell. Having been held by the Royalists, it was besieged by the Parliamentarians, and Parliament—this place—ordered the castle to be destroyed. To add insult to injury, in the intervening period the castle market was built on top of the site. That has now been demolished and archaeology is being done on the site. The end point of this is a story from the last few months, when the archaeologists uncovered abatises—a word that I have just learned—which are sharpened branches that were put around the ditch by the defenders in an attempt to hold off the Parliamentarians.

This is not just a history story. This is a city that is uncovering an important, exciting piece of its past which has survived miraculously and against all odds. This is a story of how important discoveries such as this are to cities’ identities and local heritage is to the identity of a place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, set out, we cannot allow centralisation and the taking away of local control, which might see us lose stories such as this.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the Bill stands to disapply heritage regimes for transport infrastructure developments. There is, therefore, a risk that this could harm heritage assets without proper scrutiny and probably go further than the stated ambition of the Bill. I am therefore delighted to support Amendment 54 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, who has outlined the technical issues, as has the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in talking about his amendment.

We all understand that building transport infrastructure is important to our economic growth. In particular, new public transport is important to support people moving away from cars where possible. However, we have got to make sure that, in building faster and more efficiently, we do not lose critical heritage. This amendment and debate are important because they flag the importance of recognising our architectural heritage and conserving the historic environment alongside the need for new infrastructure. It is a practical approach, and I urge the Government to support this small but, in some ways, significant change.

As we have already heard, in Committee in the Commons, the Minister acknowledged that these changes could have unintended consequences and committed to respond to concerns raised by my colleague Gideon Amos MP by Report—yet nothing has been forthcoming. No further comments were made by the Minister on Clause 41 during that debate. I await the response from the noble Lord the Minister to this important topic of our heritage assets and the answers to the many important questions that have been raised.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, after this very valuable debate. I make it clear that the Opposition Front Bench is fully behind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. I seek to add nothing to the detail of their amendments, which were so eloquently argued by both of them.

I just add one reflection of my own. It is very easy to imagine that listed building consents and planning applications are much the same thing, because they are usually dealt with by the same officers in the same local authority. But they are not; they are two very distinct legal regimes, which have two very distinct bases. Planning is essentially about mitigating and shaping the externalities of development so as to minimise public harm and perhaps achieve some public good—it is to do with utility—whereas listed building legislation is about a test of absolute value. Either a building is listed and therefore is to be preserved, implicitly for ever, or it is not. Of course, there are grades of listing and it is possible to delist a building, so there is a little movement around the edges. However, in essence, it is a test not of utility—of whether something is useful to us—but of value. For the Government to mix up these two, to mash them together, is to ignore that very important distinction.

The listed building regime is not part of a trade-off as a consequence of that. You do not say that, because we can achieve something useful on the one hand—a faster railway, shorter route or whatever it might be—there is a calculus by which we can demolish so many listed buildings to achieve that. They are not commensurate regimes. The Government would do very well to withdraw this clause altogether and rely on the flexibility in existing arrangements. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say, but I suspect that we will be debating this again in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

57: Clause 47, page 59, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) After subsection (5), insert—“(6) References in this Part to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that cross-pavement charging solutions are to be considered public charge points for the purposes of the legislation. It ensures such infrastructure falls within the scope of relevant regulatory provisions governing public electric vehicle charging.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, a lot of the discussion this afternoon has been very technical, as it would be around planning, but this group of amendments is much more practical. They are about electric vehicle infrastructure, making sure that we can easily support the next generation of electric vehicles and make it easy for people to transition to domestic electric vehicles at home, as well as in the commercial sectors. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting their names to my amendments in this group.

Amendment 57 would allow for cross-pavement solutions to be considered as public charge points in this legislation to ensure that such infrastructure fell within the scope of regulatory provisions governing public electric vehicle charging, to make it easier, quicker and cheaper for people to move to electric vehicles at home. Currently, EVs can be a more affordable and convenient alternative to petrol or diesel cars and they can save households up to £1,000 a year, but only if you have a driveway. Up to 40% of households in the UK do not have access to off-street parking, so they rely on public charge points, which can cost up to 10 times more than charging at home. For millions of households that is unaffordable, and it is unacceptable to expect only certain consumers to pay the price for the transition to electric.

Cross-pavement solutions have real potential to tackle that challenge, and they have been proven to be a workable solution in 38 local authority areas to date, but the current process for applying for one is lengthy and costly. Drivers report that you have to pay up to about £3,000 for the planning application, the permitting and charge point installation costs, and waiting up to 12 to 15 months simply for a decision from their local authority on whether permission to install one has been granted. So many residents have given up trying to secure cross-pavement solutions and electric vehicles because of these delays and costs.

This amendment seeks to make the transition to electric fair. It asks that cross-pavement solutions are treated in the same way that public charge points are being treated, simplifying the process for applying for these solutions by allowing them to be treated under street works permitting. This would make it quicker, easier and less costly for residents. Crucially, local authorities would still have some control over the decision on whether the cross-pavement solution is appropriate and safe for that location, and whether it can go ahead.

Amendment 58 would extend permitted development relating to electric vehicle charging points where there is an agreed cross-pavement charging solution and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15 centimetres. The Government have extended permitted development rights to households wishing to install charge points where the houses are close to the street and they have off-street parking. This amendment seeks to extend these rights to households without off-street parking that wish to install a charge point so that they can get a cross-pavement solution. It does not conflate the charge point with the cross-pavement solution; they are still two separate entities. It would simply ensure that those residents who are applying for a cross-pavement solution can then install a proper charge point that allows them access to the cheaper charging rates that residents with driveways are already able to use.

Electric Vehicle Association England provided me with this quote from its recent survey. One respondent commented how the council refused to consider installing a charger gully, saying, “We got a free charger and installation along with our car purchase, but we haven’t been able to make use of it, as our local council refuses to consider charging gully solutions”. Another hybrid car owner, when asked why they did not choose an EV, said it was due to the difficulty of installing a charger. They said: “Our council has no policy or provision for pavement gulleys to make it easier. There are no on-street public chargers either”.

Another quote is:

“You shouldn’t need a driveway to own an electric car. My Plan for Change is boosting funding for infrastructure to allow cables to run safely beneath pavements. That’s cheaper, at home charging”.


Those are not my words but the Prime Minister’s a week and a half ago. There is a need to make it easier for everyone to be able to move to electric vehicles through simplifying the system and allowing people without driveways to be able to move to EVs. I hope the Minister will work with me to make this vision a reality through this legislation.

Amendments 64 and 67, which are in my name, cover HGV electric charging points. Amendment 66 covers EV charging infrastructure plans. As we transition to cleaner vehicles and technology allows for HGVs to run on electric batteries, there is a need to support charging infrastructure in the planning system. The lack of adequate charging infrastructure remains one of the major obstacles to greater e-HGV adoption. According to a report by National Grid, 70% to 90% of HGVs will be charged or refuelled overnight in their depot or at their destinations, but the remaining 10% to 30% will rely on public charge stations. e-HGVs are very much a reality—in fact, we had one outside the House only a few weeks ago. There are a number of announced plans for charging stations right across the country from a variety of companies, but I know from my inbox that, where a company might want to move to e-HGVs, they find that the local authority will not grant planning permission for the necessary infrastructure at a depot, stopping the decarbonisation of this industry.

These amendments are about a clear installation programme for HGV electric charging points at key transport points, and the provision of EV charging infrastructure at freight depots and HGV facilities when they are new or substantially renovated. This amendment would future-proof the logistics infrastructure by embedding EV readiness into the design and permitting process. This supports depots and warehouses to be ready for the transition. Depot charging, as I said, is the preferred option where possible for operators as it allows trucks to charge while at a natural stopping point, not requiring additional stops to recharge in transit, which can also leave cargo vulnerable to theft. It also reduces future retrofitting costs and planning delays by integrating charging requirements from the outset.

Amendment 67 is about the prioritisation of electricity grid connections for EV infrastructure. It tackles a major barrier to infrastructure rollout: delays in grid connection approvals. Some fleet operators may face up to a 15-year wait for a grid connection to meet their need for electric infrastructure, severely hampering a willingness to invest. This amendment recognises the strategic importance of logistics infrastructure for national supply chain security and decarbonisation.

Finally, Amendment 66 is about placing a duty on local authorities to produce a local EV charging infrastructure plan to assess the demand and need for EV charging infrastructure in their area, including both private and commercial vehicles. This will ensure a comprehensive understanding of need to focus efforts. Local authorities are critical to the rollout of EV infrastructure, but often lack a co-ordinated or strategic plan. This duty empowers them to take a proactive role while ensuring consistency across regions.

The amendment would ensure local accountability and planning for EV infrastructure deployment, aligning with national decarbonisation targets. Importantly, it establishes a recurring review cycle every three years to ensure that plans are responsive to evolving demand and technology. So this package of amendments would make a huge difference to supporting the transition to electric vehicles. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these issues and all the amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who I thought admirably set out the importance of the case. Frankly, we are only a decade away from the point where we intend that all the new cars that are to be bought are to be electric vehicles. As she rightly said, something approaching 40% of the people who we expect in future to buy cars are in premises that do not have charging facilities, and we want to enable that to happen. It is all part of the green energy transition that we want to support. So I very much support everything that she said and I hope that we can find a solution.

As far as I can see, the clause to which this amendment refers intends to support the process of adding public charge points to the road architecture but does not necessarily allow individual householders to be able to find the appropriate cross-pavement charging solutions for this. My noble friend Lord Lucas has an amendment in this group the purpose of which is to give permitted development rights for this. I know that the Government will say, “Well, permitted development rights relate to the curtilage of one’s own premises, they do not extend out into the pavement for this purpose”. But I hope the spirit of this debate might be that we all agree on what we want to achieve—the question is what the best way is to achieve it.

I suggest to the Minister that one way we might look at this is to look at Section 50 of the New Roads and Street Works Act, which is about the process of applying for a street works licence. This clause is intended to enable those who have a street works licence to access the necessary works in the street. As the noble Baroness said, that is an expensive solution for an individual householder and not likely to be an easy route. The question to the Minister is whether we might actually find, as he is in the business today of streamlining applications, whether we can streamline applications for street works licences for individual householders, or groups of householders, in order for them to get a street works licence by what is effectively a deemed consent, rather than having to make individual applications. It is a bit like an assumption that the licence will be granted, save if there are particular exceptions or objections. That might get us to the point where householders or groups of householders can get the cross-pavement charging solutions that they require—and I think that it is urgent that we make that happen. So I hope that it is something that we can progress during the course of this Bill.

I will raise just one other point, which is about the green energy transition and the amendments relating to HGVs. I ask that we not only look at electric charging points for HGVs but recognise that HGVs—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Naseby earlier—can, very readily and unlike many other road vehicles, use hydrogen cost-effectively as a solution. But they need a network. My Japanese friends have told me that Japan is creating a network of hydrogen refuelling points for its HGV fleet. The Japanese are orders of magnitude ahead of us on this.

--- Later in debate ---

I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response and thank all Members who have spoken on this group. All but one of us agree on what we want to achieve. Although we understand that it can be complex, there must be a way to streamline things to make it easier, cheaper and quicker for cross-pavement solutions to help people transition to electric vehicles. I still believe that simplifying the process can be achieved through this planning Bill.

We see what happens today: either people are not able move to electric vehicles, or we have cables draped out of windows, across pavements—maybe with a mat over the cable if you are lucky so that it is not a trip hazard. We need to find a way forward. The Prime Minister committed to it in the last couple of weeks. I hope that we can continue to have dialogue on this before Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

63: After Clause 47, insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of solar panels in new transport infrastructure(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, require that all new transport infrastructure projects requiring approval under any enactment make provision for the installation of solar panels where reasonably practicable.(2) The regulations must include—(a) criteria for determining when installation is reasonably practicable, including structural, environmental, and safety considerations;(b) minimum surface area requirements for solar panel coverage where practicable;(c) the types of transport infrastructure to which the requirement applies.(3) “Transport infrastructure” includes but is not limited to—(a) new or refurbished rail stations and rail lines,(b) new or refurbished bus stations and depots,(c) major road-building or upgrading projects, and(d) other public transport hubs.(4) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to mandate the installation of solar panels in the construction of new transport infrastructure where reasonably practicable, through regulations made by statutory instrument.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I will speak briefly to the three amendments I have in this group.

Amendment 63 is about increasing solar panels on new transport infrastructure. This could include new or refurbished railway stations or rail lines, bus and tram stations and depots, major road building or upgrade projects, and other public transport hubs. As a country, we have so much to learn from others. For example, Switzerland has just started a new scheme of installing solar panels on the actual railways; PV panels will be rolled out like carpet between the tracks in one of their western cantons. Germany plans to install solar panels along motorways, tapping into 250,000 potential sites to boost renewable energy. France is trialling solar panels on its railway estate.

The European Commission, in a 2024 report, looked at the potential for the large-scale deployment of vertical solar panels on Europe’s major roads and railways. It concluded that the electricity generated from such PV installations would not only be cost-effective in electricity markets but serve as a viable alternative to fossil fuels in transportation. Tapping into solar PV energy along transport infrastructure can therefore significantly contribute to the EU’s energy transition, and we should do the same here in the UK. There are examples of good practice—at Second Reading, I mentioned Blackfriars and Denmark Hill railway stations—but we must do more, and that is why I tabled the amendment.

Amendment 106 is a requirement for all new car parks to include solar panels. As I highlighted at Second Reading, across the country there are vast expanses of roof space that sit idle, while exposed to sunlight. Installing solar panels on car parks could generate clean energy, reduce grid pressure and power local EV chargers directly. France has already mandated solar panels on large car parks. The Government’s recent consultation on solar panels feels like we are trying to catch up; this amendment will make that a reality, and I hope that the Minister will be able to support it.

Finally, Amendment 68 is about the prioritisation of electricity grid connections for EV charging infrastructure. This includes, as I discussed in an earlier group, the need for a focus on commercial as well as private vehicles. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, although she is not in her place, for putting her name to this amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will again speak extremely briefly. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed Amendments 68 and 106.

I already referred to Amendment 68 when discussing the need for the Government to ensure that the electricity network providers prioritise grid connections for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, particularly for freight. As I said in an earlier group, that is particularly important. It will potentially have a large draw on the grid, so this has to be planned from an early stage to make sure there is enough there to cater for HGVs.

If we were going to have a contest for the most popular amendment tabled to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I think Amendment 106 might be it. I have heard a number of people saying, “Don’t put solar panels on farmland, put them on car parks instead”. It is a pity we are doing this before the holidays, because, when we come back, many people will have undoubtably been in continental Europe. France, for example, has a rule that all new and existing car parks with more than 80 places must install solar panels. So, this is a very modest amendment, when you compare it to what France has legislated; this is only talking about new car parks. It is absolutely common sense about where we should be putting those solar panels, for all the practical reasons, in terms of the extra shade they provide, protection for cars and to meet the Government’s energy targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, before I speak to these amendments, I declare my registered interests, including shareholdings in companies involved in renewable energy. These interests are not directly affected by the amendments under discussion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for tabling and speaking to these amendments so eloquently and passionately, and for her ongoing commitment to the UK’s decarbonisation ambitions in the transport sector.

Amendments 63 and 106 seek to mandate the installation of solar panels in the construction of new transport infrastructure and require solar panels to be provided as part of the construction of all new above-ground car parks. The Government are committed to achieving clean power by 2030, and it is clear that solar energy will be crucial to achieving our mission. The clean power action plan calls for the rapid acceleration of solar deployment, from around 18 gigawatts as of April 2025 to 45 to 47 gigawatts by 2030. This is an ambitious mission, which has enormous potential to create good jobs, protect bill payers, ensure energy security and reduce our exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets. The recently published Solar Roadmap includes over 70 actions for government and industry to take forward to help deliver this ambition by removing barriers to deployment of all types of solar.

We recognise that solar canopies on car parks have the potential to provide significant renewable electricity generation, shelter for cars and drivers, and localised power for EV charging points. This year, the Government published a call for evidence to assess the potential to drive the construction of solar canopies on new outdoor car parks over a certain size.

We are currently analysing the evidence that has been provided by the sector, and are conducting the essential cost-benefit analysis needed to understand the impact of any policy to mandate the provision of solar on new car parks. Having not yet concluded this process, it would not be appropriate at this stage to include this amendment in the Bill. However, the Government are considering this proposal very carefully and will explore ways to achieve its intention, including through future legislation, if the evidence supports this conclusion.

It is also the case that we do not currently have the evidence base to support requiring all transport infrastructure to include solar panel installation. We have not yet engaged with industry to fully understand the potential impact of this amendment, or conducted the necessary cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be appropriate to install solar on all the different types of transport infrastructure set out in the amendment.

The Government are committed to achieving their mission through significant solar deployment across the country. Following the publication of the road map, the solar council will be established to bring together the solar industry, the UK Government and other relevant parties. The council will work to secure, enable and accelerate the deployment of solar at all scales and identify emerging opportunities, realigning priorities and action as needed.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, notes the ongoing work the Government are doing in this area, which must conclude before any consideration of a legislative intervention takes place. I therefore kindly ask her to withdraw her amendment.

On Amendment 68, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, the Government recognise the importance of accelerating grid connections for electricity demand projects, including electric vehicle charging, as well as for generation projects. This recognition lies at the heart of the reforms we announced in the industrial strategy, which include using the powers in the Bill to amend regulatory processes and accelerate connections for strategically important projects.

Although the Government fully acknowledge the critical role of freight and logistics in national supply chain security and decarbonisation targets, it would not be prudent to enshrine in legislation a preference for one sector, as this would inevitably mean deprioritising equally important sectors listed in the industrial strategy, such as advanced manufacturing, the wider supply chain for clean energy projects, data centres, and more.

That is why we have also announced the connections accelerator service, which will support strategically important projects across all priority sectors to accelerate their connection dates. The Department for Transport will play a key role in helping to shape the framework for identifying these vital projects.

I also take this opportunity to highlight the suite of initiatives the Government are pursuing in support of the electrification of freight, logistics and the broader transport sector. This includes our ongoing efforts in national and regional strategic energy planning. We are working to support infrastructure investment ahead of need, ensuring that we not merely react to but anticipate demand. By planning strategically, we can deliver robust, future-proofed infrastructure, and support our broader decarbonisation and economic ambitions.

Furthermore, the Department for Transport is actively encouraging stakeholders in the transport sector to look ahead, to consider their future electricity needs and to feed this information directly into our strategic planning processes. By doing so, we will create a more comprehensive and responsive energy network that is able to meet the evolving requirements of our nation’s transport system.

I also highlight the work of the Freight Energy Forum. Led by the Department for Transport, this forum brings together transport and energy stakeholders from across the country, providing a platform for knowledge-sharing and collaboration. By working closely together, we can inform future action and ensure that the sector remains agile and well-equipped for an electrified future.

I trust that the Committee will appreciate the rationale for our approach and recognise the Government’s determination to deliver balanced, strategic and forward-looking energy infrastructure for the nation. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned a number of countries, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The noble Baroness cited the French Government in particular. The potential for solar canopies on car parks is significant, and we are looking carefully at international best practice, including what France has introduced. Before committing to any prospective policy, including mandating, we believe it right to properly engage with industry and stakeholders to better understand the impacts and see whether government intervention is needed.

Noble Lords alluded to a couple of points about deploying solar on rail lines and roads. Rail track solar could be a feasible solution, particularly in urban areas where the track is electrified, as there will already be a good connection. However, there are some current obstacles that may inhibit the deployment of the technology in all areas, such as the challenge of grid connections in rural areas and additional kit required to convert electricity from solar to usable electricity for trains, which may be expensive.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about car parks and agricultural land. This Government are committed to a solar revolution that enhances energy security while protecting the UK’s biodiversity and agricultural spaces. Car parks indeed offer an opportunity to utilise vast spaces for solar generation, but we must engage with industry and gather a broader evidence base to overcome the potential structural and financial barriers to widespread use of solar canopies. For the reasons outlined previously, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I thank Members who have spoken on this group and the Minister for his detailed answer. He talked about a solar road map. Alongside that, we want a solar rail, tram and bus map. We want to see this across transport infrastructure, and we hope to start to see some progress in due course, particularly looking internationally. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

Train Operators’ Revenue Protection Practices Review

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The new east coast main line timetable includes several big improvements, such as knocking over a quarter of an hour off the direct journey to Edinburgh and a service to Newcastle of three trains an hour, which is considerably in excess of the service on the Metropolitan line to Amersham. That is the objective of a railway timetable which is to serve the biggest flows with the best train service. In respect of Darlington and Northallerton, the noble Baroness knows that, in fact, Darlington will have more through-trains to London in December than it does now, as will Northallerton. Some of the other journeys will need a change, and the timetable is arranged to make the best of all those journeys while producing the benefits that I described.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, passengers are fed up with the complexity of rail fares and of the terms and conditions of tickets. When will passengers see a simpler, transparent new range of tickets ahead of Great British Railways coming into operation?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right to describe it as a mess. We are not waiting for Great British Railways. LNER’s changes to long-distance fares, which have been introduced progressively, have resulted in considerably greater passenger satisfaction with the way in which the fares are arranged now compared with before. I am expecting to see similar arrangements on the west coast main line and on Great Western in due course. I think the noble Baroness knows that we are rolling out pay-as-you-go in urban areas, as well as in London and the south-east. It is a long and complex job, and it is not helped by the fact that, fundamentally, the fares system has not changed since the railways were privatised. We are on it, and we are working hard at it.

Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, in the new spirit in the House of declarations of interests, I declare mine at the outset. I do so as a private pilot, a former director of Newcastle airport and the author of an investigation into lower airspace, which was brought about at the request of the then Transport Secretary Sir Grant Shapps. It was primarily to do with lower airspace, but it highlighted a number of things.

I will not speak for long, but I want to ask the Minister a few questions. I welcome very much what is being proposed, but I wonder to what extent it can be delivered. It is extremely complicated because it deals with a very complicated situation in relation not only to lower airspace but to upper airspace, the whole area of control zones around airports and the historic position of airports themselves as sponsors of changes to airspace. This has always been an area of great concern, particularly to general aviation, which is rather more random in its representation. Unlike the airports—which have their own clear bodies to represent them and the institution—airlines and others, general aviation is a bit more haphazard and therefore in need of protection, if I may put it that way, from government.

These proposed changes have enormous implications for those involved in general aviation—and business aviation too—first, by removing individual effort and the sponsors that exist currently, particularly the airports themselves. I hope that there will be sufficient objectivity in the decisions that are taken to maintain GA’s position in any redesign mechanism. There have been concerns over the years that, because of the sponsorship by airports and their own determination to hold on to airspace and control zones for their own commercial benefit as well as—they claim—for safety and security, we have seen a diminution in parts of the country of the convenience and ability of general aviation to operate.

The south-east of England is a classic case. I am lucky in that I fly mostly in the north and in Scotland, where we do not have control zones for much of the territory. This makes it a much freer situation for GA, and that is very helpful. I note that there is to be an initial stage—if you like—of these processes, which will concentrate on the London area. I hope, therefore, that the views and feelings of GA will be fully taken into account in the redesign that might take place.

Secondly, it seems to me, and one of the criticisms has been, that, “What we have, we hold”, appeared to be the attitude of a lot of those who sponsored airspace controls. Very rarely do people seem to want to give up anything. Changes in technology, which are referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum and have been dramatic over the last few years, seem to suggest that some airports currently have airspace controls that are unnecessary and could be yielded up for use by general aviation, certainly in terms of routing and so on. I would like to know whether there will be sufficient protection for them.

Thirdly, on the question of airports, the initial stages of proposals from the airports produced a rather mixed outcome. Some airports appeared to be quick off the mark and willing to take part in a modernisation proposal; others seemed more reluctant. Therefore, I wonder to what extent these proposals will be able to go ahead in a way that produces something comprehensive, rather than, as we currently have, a bit of a mishmash of circumstances. It is awfully important that all these elements are brought together—and with the support of the various people who have been involved so far in sponsoring and directing these events. Will the Minister comment further on that?

Finally, on the timescale, we have been doing this for quite a long time. This measure is welcome but we were making progress way back before we had the Covid situation. Unfortunately, things seem to have become rather slow. That is inevitable, I suppose, but I would like to see some kind of clear timescale so that we can bring matters to a head and finalise a comprehensive scheme to which all parties are signed up.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

In many ways, it is quite extraordinary that no single organisation in the UK is currently responsible for creating a modern and integrated airspace design. As we have heard, across the country, airspace change proposals are sponsored by individual bodies—usually airports or air navigation service providers—and, in more congested areas, such as London, there are multiple overlapping ACPs, each with a separate sponsor.

Aviation law is governed by an international system of rules set by the International Civil Aviation Organization. In many ICAO contracting states there is one entity, usually a public body, responsible for airspace planning and design; that same body is also responsible for air traffic services and air navigation. This clearly makes it much easier to deliver airspace change that benefits the whole state’s airspace than is currently possible in the UK.

We therefore welcome this SI, which changes licensing rules to allow a single new UK airspace design service to be created and to oversee both airspace modernisation and changes to use of airspace. We welcome steps to better co-ordinate a disjointed system of managing airspace but, of course, we will hold the Government to account to ensure that modernisation works for all our communities and for our environment. It is important to bring airspace into the 21st century, to deliver flight paths that cut emissions and to ensure that journeys are quicker, quieter and cleaner. However, with any changes there will be winners and losers. The Government must recognise this and work with communities as airspace is modernised—not least in congested areas, such as London.

We must also ensure that airspace modernisation reflects the needs of our communities, recognising the impact that noise and air pollution can have on people and on nature. I think in particular of residents in Richmond and other west London boroughs who suffer greatly because of flights relating to Heathrow and are fearful of any changes. I ask the Minister: how do the Government plan to ensure that the new UK airspace design service works openly and transparently with communities that are impacted by aviation, genuinely engages and consults, and is a trusted, independent voice in this area, because there is a lot of suspicion in many communities? Also, will this new organisation be subject to freedom of information legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My final question, before I was interrupted by the Division Bell, was: what is the timescale for the development of this new service and its first project tackling the complex London airspace?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, in general we welcome this statutory instrument. We welcome the prospect of a more rational organisation of airspace—who could do otherwise? However, there are considerable problems and the Minister needs probing on some of them. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Foster of Oxton, who is not in her place because she is detained on a train that has been diverted and which has delayed her. She would have been here; as noble Lords will know, during her many years in the European Parliament, she worked on all the Single European Sky legislation. She has supplied me with some questions, and some of my speech has been helped by her: I want to acknowledge that, because that has been very useful.

The first question has to go to cost. How much extra will the airlines have to pay, over and above their current payments for air traffic control services? They are going to be recharged for this. Is it going to be a smooth sum, or will it be lumpy and go up and down as costs are incurred? The Minister says it will be small and that, indeed, they may save money in the long term, once it is all done. However, there are so many things that the Government say are going to be small and will save you money in the long term, but they never do. So can he be more precise than simply saying “small” and give us a better clue of how much it will be, perhaps as a percentage of what they currently pay?

Another question has to do with the timescale for achieving this; here, I refer to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. It looks as though it will take years, not simply because of complexity—we grant that the work will be complex—but also, if one looks at page 5 of the Explanatory Notes that accompany the statutory instrument and the number of stages that have to be gone through to achieve a CAA decision on airspace change, it could take many years to do the work. Can the noble Lord give an estimate of how long it might be before, even for the London area, we see these changes brought into effect?

Returning to the charges for a moment, will foreign carriers that enter UK airspace be asked to pay towards this? If so, how will they be charged? Then there is the big question of how these changes are going to be integrated with neighbouring airspace and air traffic control arrangements, particularly the Single European Sky arrangements. Do they need to be, perhaps because they are en route? It might be that they are wholly within domestic airspace and that integration is therefore not needed, but some words from the Minister on that when he comes to reply would be helpful.

There is another question, about skills. I do not doubt for a moment that many of the people involved in airspace planning in the UK are very skilful, but UK Research and Innovation’s Future Flight Challenge said:

“The skills and knowledge needed for the airspace designers for any ACPs associated with enabling new airspace users will likely be different to the airport based changes”


to which we are accustomed. Where are the skills going to come from? Can we be guaranteed that we will have the right skills and the right people in place to do this work in a timely fashion?

Next, I want to build on some remarks made by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, who referred to general aviation and smaller airports—he did not refer to smaller airports explicitly, but I shall. With this new all-singing, all-dancing, powerful body that will set these new rules for flights, it will be very easy to ignore the particular needs of smaller airports. I note that, in the consultation so far, there have been some very worried remarks from airports such as Biggin Hill and Farnborough about how their interests are going to be looked after as this work proceeds. Again, some consolation from the Minister would be very helpful.

Finally, I come to the public. Any change in flight paths can have a devastating effect on communities that live under those flight paths, particularly if they are close to an airport. The question of public engagement by NERL as it proceeds with this work is going to be crucial to its successful implementation. I would like to hear the noble Lord say that that there will be a plan from the outset for transparent public engagement on the proposed changes, and the possible changes, so that communities, local authorities and their representatives can be fully engaged. He may say that this could make it difficult to get the work done, but my view is that we have a choice: either we tackle this problem early on and hope to deal with it as we proceed, or we proceed in relative silence, with a lack of transparency, and run into a massive problem at the end, a problem that might, in various locations, be so powerful that it results in making the changes politically unimplementable. I would like to hear about the public engagement strategy, because of the powerful effect that these changes might have on local communities; otherwise, if the Government can pull this off, it will take many years and it will improve things, but there is a great danger, in my view, of it all going horribly wrong somewhere along the line.

Road and Rail Projects

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, in the light of that last vote on the Bill, I will have to be very careful about what I say to ensure that it does not offend staff.

It must be tough being the Secretary of State for Transport, because every time the Government are in difficulty with their Back-Benchers she is sent out to make another announcement about some great, distant spending plans. Of course, all the rail announcements made in this Statement were in fact announced by the previous Government. Before the Minister says, “Where was the money?”—and when he does say that, it displays a certain frailty of constitutional grasp—the fact is that, had the previous Government been re-elected, there would have been a spending review, just as this Government have had a spending review, and the schemes that this Government have announced would be in that spending review. That was the pledge; that is how our constitution works.

Part of this Statement is not about announcing new rail schemes but about cancelling road schemes. We are not going to get the widening of the A12 or the A47 scheme from Wansford to Sutton. They are gone for the foreseeable future. However, I will turn back to the rail schemes, as my few remaining remarks will be about them.

We find ourselves in the extraordinary position of being asked to celebrate rail expansion when the Government have still failed to lay the Great British Railways Bill before Parliament. Great British Railways, optimistically suggested for late 2026 at the earliest, now appears increasingly likely to slip to 2027 or beyond, with the legislation yet to appear before either House of Parliament. Perhaps the Government have finally realised that centralising control of our railways is not the simple solution that they once claimed it would be. The complexities of their grand nationalisation project appear to have caught them rather off guard.

So my first question to the Minister is: where is the Bill? Where is Great British Railways? More pertinently, where is shadow Great British Railways—which already has a remunerated chair—in these announcements? The relevance of that is that, under the Government’s scheme and their plans for rail, proposals such as this—the expansion of the rail network—are meant to be proposed, worked up and delivered by Great British Railways, subject to government funding, not the other way round. We are not even sure that all these schemes will necessarily be carried out, because what guarantee is there that they will be a priority for Great British Railways when that body comes into existence? Is it, in fact, merely a puppet for the department after all, as we suspect might be the case?

When we were debating the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, which began the process of nationalising the train operating companies, I warned that the Government were moving not from one state to another but from one state to a huge transition period. That is what we are in at the moment: a transition period where we have no idea who is in charge of the railways and no real accountability. It is a governance mess. The Department for Transport continues its iron grip on the rail operators, which it now owns through subsidiary companies, with civil servants in effect running train services while the promised arm’s-length body remains a distant aspiration. This raises fundamental questions about whether their calls for rail growth are genuine or merely a smokescreen for increased state control.

The Government’s actions speak louder than their words. The Office of Rail and Road, under instruction from the Secretary of State, has already rejected eight open access operator contracts, despite compelling evidence that competition drives service improvements and passenger growth. That ideological opposition to open access operations flies in the face of economic evidence and passenger benefits. Consider the transformative impact of operators such as Grand Central and Hull Trains, which have brought direct services to previously underserved communities in Sunderland, Scarborough, Bradford and Hull. These are not abstract policy successes but tangible improvements to people’s lives, connecting communities that had previously lacked such direct rail links.

Independent research by Arup and Frontier Economics provides unequivocal evidence of competition’s benefits. On corridors with open access competition, service frequency rose by up to 60% and total passenger numbers increased by approximately 40%. Those are not marginal gains; they represent the kind of transformational improvements the Government claim to seek through their infrastructure spending. Yet instead of embracing this proven model for growth, they actively suppress it.

If this Government were truly committed to rail growth, they would be encouraging, not stifling, the competition that demonstrably delivers increased services and passenger numbers. The fact that they do the opposite suggests that their rail policy is driven more by ideology than economic efficiencies.

The delays to Great British Railways reveal a Government who perhaps underestimated the complexity of their grand nationalisation project. What was once promised as a streamlined solution now appears mired in the very bureaucratic inefficiencies they claimed to oppose. The latest date we have for the Great British Railways Bill to appear is the autumn. Will the Minister confirm that date or will he have to say, as is now widely believed in the industry, that he will not make that deadline and that the Bill will be coming much closer to Christmas at the earliest?

This House has a duty to scrutinise not just the Government’s spending commitments but the coherence of their overall transport strategy. We cannot properly fulfil that duty when key legislation remains unpublished and when policy appears to contradict evidence. The Government must explain why they continue to reject open access applications when the evidence so clearly demonstrates their value. They must clarify when Parliament will finally see the Great British Railways Bill and they must reconcile their rhetoric about rail growth with their actions that constrain it. Until then, I fear we are being asked to applaud announcements while the fundamental questions about rail policy direction remain unanswered. The British public deserve better than this policy vacuum masquerading as progress.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I will focus on the Statement and the rail and road projects contained within it and, perhaps, those not within it. Across the country, communities have been let down by a transport system that is creaking, crying out for investment and improvement, and was neglected by the last Conservative Government. Constant announcements and reannouncements of transport projects were made, with what appeared to be fictional budgets that never materialised, while our roads and railways deteriorated. The public have been let down.

A safe and reliable transport system is vital for economic growth, and therefore this capital investment is welcome news for the communities that will benefit. In particular, I welcome the Midlands rail hub, the east coast main line being upgraded with digital signalling, new stations at Wellington in Somerset and at Cullompton in Devon, the east-west railway line to Cambridge, and over £2 billion for Transport for London to continue with the purchase of new Piccadilly, Bakerloo and Docklands Light Railway trains. We await the detail of Northern Powerhouse Rail—the Statement says “soon”, whatever that might mean.

It would be helpful, given the hopes raised in the past, for the Government to provide details of the timescale and how the money will be spent to deliver the projects outlined in the Statement. The Statement also confirms that many other schemes will now need to be reviewed. These are projects that are paused or effectively scrapped. I am particularly concerned about the pause to the electrification of the Midland main line from London to Sheffield. Given the removal of the High Speed 2 leg to Sheffield, it feels as if Labour is letting down Sheffield and South Yorkshire by once again cutting major investment in its railway, leaving Sheffield as the largest city in Britain without an electrified railway. When can we see this important project back on track?

I am also deeply concerned that stage 5 of the resilience programme in Dawlish has not been funded. It would take only one large storm to close the railway to the south-west once again. Monitoring is not enough, and I hope the Minister, as the former chair of Network Rail, will assure the House about the future of this project. Then there is the busiest interchange station in the entire country, without step-free access to platforms or accessible facilities for passengers. Its platforms and corridors are far too narrow for a station with around 6 million entries and exits a year. Planning permission has been granted and it is ready to start construction next year, but the project has been put on hold. What am I talking about? Peckham Rye in south-east London. This is such a busy and important interchange. When can we expect funding for this vital project?

Finally, away from the specific projects that I have outlined, can the Minister give a firm assurance that the Government have learned from the overruns of High Speed 2 and Crossrail, and that all these projects will be delivered on time, on budget and using technology such as digital twins, where appropriate, to ensure value for money for the taxpayer?

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

My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said so much about other things. He did not have much to say about the list of funded schemes, so I am concluding that, by and large, he is happy with what he has read in the Secretary of State’s Statement in the other place. He makes a lot of noise about the fact that they would have been in some spending review had his Government been re-elected. They were not. Before that, however, they had published documents with endless numbers of schemes that were, frankly, never likely to be funded. There were promises everywhere but funding nowhere. The best example of that is the notorious Network North document. Incidentally, it included Tavistock and a number of other places not in the north of England at all, but the characteristic of all the entries in that document was that none of them was ever funded.

He does not have to listen to me about this, although it is a pleasure to speak to the House now. My predecessor, Huw Merriman, was in front of the Transport Select Committee a few days ago and said:

“A lot of promises were made to MPs and others as to the ambition, but it did not match the amount that was actually being set down. By the time I came into post I ended up with a list that was much longer than could be funded”.


That is true: around the country, all sorts of communities were promised transport schemes by the previous Government that were never likely to be funded and were not funded. Somebody has to sort that out and announce a programme that will bring long-term economic prosperity around Britain, get schemes built and stop a lot of money being spent on endless scheme development without the schemes being delivered. This is such a list, and this list will be delivered. The funding is in place through the spending review to do it, even though there is less than we would like because of the lamentable state of the economy at the time this Government took over.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has a lot to say pejoratively about the Government’s rail reform and he continues to ask where the Bill is, but he knows perfectly well that progress can be made without the Bill. Indeed, the purpose of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 was to start the process of bringing passenger operations back into public ownership. The consequence is that we already have two parts of the railway controlled by one person, both the infrastructure and operations. That will allow better reliability, increased revenue and reduced costs. Things are happening today that were not going to happen under the previous regime, and which will produce a better railway. That is important.

The noble Lord says that civil servants are running train services. Actually, I note that Steve White at Southeastern Railway and Lawrence Bowman at South Western Railway are good railway people. They are not civil servants; they are public servants, and they intend to run those businesses for the benefit of the travelling public and the British economy.

The noble Lord talked a bit about open access. What he failed to say about the applications that the Office of Rail and Road recently rejected is that it did not reject them on any competitive grounds; it simply rejected them, most recently, because of a lack of capacity in the railway system. Those train services could not run, and if they had then they would have disturbed further—or, rather, reduced—the reliability of the system.

One point about the list of schemes—lamentably, he did not go into it in detail, but I could—is that many of those schemes will help the railway to run by improving its capacity, such as the digital signalling on the southern end of the east coast main line, which the noble Baroness referred to. The list is starting to look at improving railway capacity and reliability, which was not a feature of many of the Network North schemes—even though they were not funded—but is a feature of these schemes. This is part of the Government’s intention for a long-term investment strategy, and the schemes announced by the Secretary of State last week are an important part of that. I absolutely contend that the Government are on track to deliver what the economy needs in terms of local transport, particularly in the Midlands and the north; to deliver on road schemes without having a horrifically long list of schemes that were encouraged but never likely to be funded; and to start to do things on the railway that will make a real difference.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, was much more focused on the announcement itself, for which I am sure both I and the House are grateful. She enumerated a number of the schemes in the announcement; I am pleased that she welcomes those, as the rest of us will. There will be an announcement on Northern Powerhouse Rail shortly. I will not define “shortly” today; it needs to be worked out with the combined authority mayors in the north of England, which is the reason for some delay. On the road schemes, details of the timescales will emerge as road investment scheme 3 is put together and announced in the early part of next year. On the railway, we will now move forward with the schemes that have been announced.

The noble Baroness is of course right that there are well-known projects and schemes that have not made this list, particularly railway schemes, principally because the other thing that the Government did, as the Chancellor announced as part of the spending review, was to fund HS2 to continue to be delivered alongside the wholesale revision of its governance and management, which will make spending that money more successful.

That does not mean that everything that one would have wanted to have been done is capable of being done for the moment. In particular, the noble Baroness referred to the electrification of the Midland main line, which has got to Syston, near Leicester, but will not go forward, at least in this spending review programme. What will go forward, however, are the bi-mode trains that take advantage of the wires, where they are up, as well as the improvement of the power supply and resilience of the existing wiring south of Bedford, which is quite old. Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham, Leicester and other major places on the Midland main line will see a betterment of service due to the introduction of the new trains in the autumn. I think we all want to regard future electrification as a deferral rather than an abandonment.

The noble Baroness referred to phase 5 of the scheme at Dawlish in Devon on the resilience of the Great Western main line. Phases 1 to 4 were principally about repairing the sea wall and the damage created 10 years ago by an exceptional storm, whereas phase 5 is looking at the stability of the cliffs behind the railway, which indeed should be the subject of future work. The remediation, and indeed the speed of movement, of those cliffs is worth monitoring now, whereas the work that has been done up to now has been on the basic resilience of the sea wall in order to keep the railway running.

The noble Baroness is right about Peckham Rye; it is the largest interchange station, but the scheme is, at least at present, unaffordable. Although, again, I would expect that to form part of a longer-term enhancement pipeline. It is regrettable that there are things across the railway that everybody would have wanted to see, but there is simply not enough money for them.

The noble Baroness is right about the lessons from recent projects. We have talked in this Chamber about HS2 and the need for new management, governance and a focus on understanding what is being delivered at the time the money is spent. The Government, frankly, should be commended for their commitment to continue HS2, which will produce large-scale economic benefit in the Midlands while that process takes place. Not everything is bad in the railway project firmament. Indeed, the trans-Pennine upgrade and east-west rail are so far on time and on budget. Learning from those is as important as learning from HS2, which, sadly, is neither.

Finally, the noble Baroness referred to digital twins. My noble friend Lord Vallance has a lot to say about digital twins for the whole of the Oxford to Cambridge arc, of which east-west rail will form part. Its use in project management is only in the foothills but it needs to be increased. I agree with her on that, too.

Rail Freight

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Taxation, as my noble friend well knows, is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury, so I will not comment further on that. Access charges paid by freight for utilising the network do not currently cover the full fixed cost of operations, maintenance and renewal required. The capping arrangements which will be in place until March 2029 will save freight operators an estimated £33 million over this five-year control period. There are already schemes to discount access charges for new traffic, such as the mode shift revenue support scheme and Network Rail’s access charge discount policy. In the future, GBR will have greater flexibility to offer discounted charges.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as part of the Government’s work, will they assess the role that lorry trailers on rail between key points in the UK and Europe could play in increasing rail freight and reducing the wear and tear on our major highways from heavy axle weights?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness may know that, actually, that is not a new scheme. In respect of rail freight to Europe, the Government clearly have an interest in promoting it. The Channel Tunnel has plenty of spare capacity, as does HS1. In respect of carrying lorries by rail in the UK, that has been tried before. I think it is up to the private sector freight market to develop its own flows, but the Government are there to help with access and access charges in order to get that traffic on the railway.

European Union Entry/Exit System

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to prevent the introduction of the European Union’s Entry/Exit System causing transport congestion and disruption to freight.

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

My Lords, the European Union’s Entry/Exit System, EES, is now expected to be introduced in October 2025, with checks taking place on UK soil at the juxtaposed controls at the Port of Dover, Eurotunnel and Eurostar. The Government continue to work closely with the authorities at those three places and the French authorities to ensure that EES is implemented successfully. In respect of freight, over 80% of HGV journeys from Britain to the EU are undertaken by foreign-registered vehicles. EU hauliers will not be required to complete EES checks.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, but, given the significant risk to UK exports, particularly “just in time” produce, what work are the Government doing with the French authorities and the European Commission to ensure that pre-registration systems are in place ahead of implementation to alleviate congestion and support smoother freight flows?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Of course, the primary aim of government has to be to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place at juxtaposed portals ahead of the implementation of the system. The EES is an EU-wide system. Although the EU has expressed a desire to explore pre-registration and we continue to work with European colleagues to encourage the development and adoption of an app, it is still in the early stages and will not be available at the start of implementation. However, even if there were an app, passengers would still need to attend a kiosk, booth or tablet to enrol biometrics, but of course the app would reduce the time taken for individuals to undertake full EES checks at the border, so it would be very desirable. We are urging them as hard as we can.

HS2 Reset

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the history of the HS2 project is not a happy one. It was initially proposed in its current form by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and endorsed by Gordon Brown in the wake of the global financial crisis, then taken up enthusiastically by the coalition Government, in which all major decisions were made by a quad that included Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, and, indeed, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, sadly not in her place, was a Minister, as was Norman Baker. It was then taken forward further by the Conservative Government following 2015. Failure often has many parents, and there is no doubt that HS2 has been a mess. The letter from Mark Wild and the report from James Stewart leave us in no doubt of that at all.

I thank the Minister for the Statement. I welcome the appointment of Mike Brown as chairman of HS2 and the appointment last year by the Conservatives of Mark Wild as chief executive. Both are people with whom I have worked in the past, as has the Minister.

My first question to the Minister is whether there has been equally significant change in senior personnel at the Department for Transport. I ask that because the James Stewart report leaves one in no doubt that the Department for Transport failed sufficiently to distinguish its various roles in this project, including as sponsor, as funder, as policymaker and as shareholder.

This brings me to questions of governance model. The settled orthodoxy in recent years has been that, for government-supported projects to succeed, there must be a clear structural division between a sponsor body and a delivery body. On paper this is logical. The sponsor sets the strategic direction and prevents outside parties changing the objectives by gold-plating and adding further requirements as time goes by. It holds the delivery body to account, and the delivery body focuses on the execution.

In the case of HS2, this model has not functioned as intended: it has broken down. Rather than providing a framework for responsibility and efficient delivery, it has resulted in a culture of what might be called “deferral”. The dominance of the Department for Transport—well known anecdotally by those familiar with the project—over the board of HS2 has resulted, as James Stewart identifies in his report, in the board not carrying out its functions but deferring important questions it should have taken to the department. As a result, decisions were delayed, accountability was blurred, and independence of delivery was undermined.

At the same time, the department itself did not fully separate its own strategic oversight role as sponsor from its various operational entanglements. There was no clear split within the department between those who were supposed to hold the project to account and those who were working with it in other regards. We are therefore left with very serious questions that go way beyond HS2. They affect, for example, the restoration and renewal project of the Palace of Westminster. Something we relied on as a dependable structure—which appeared to prove itself largely in the case of Crossrail, for example—has broken down. My second question to the Minister, then, is, what thinking are the Government giving to a new model that is going to work well for future projects, or are we now steering blind?

My final point relates to Euston station. Euston is, strictly speaking, no longer part of HS2 Ltd’s responsibilities, as I understand it. It was a decision of the last Government to put it into a separate company, but I am not aware of the existence of that separate company; perhaps it exists on paper. I am not aware of the board of that company, or the chairman of that company. I am not aware of what that company is actually doing, because, while the Government have committed to taking the tunnels forward from Old Oak Common to Euston station, there is as yet no plan for the delivery of platforms at Euston station, which would allow passengers to make use of those tunnels.

I am not speaking for my party now, so much as for myself, when I say that I have always felt that a terminal-station solution for Euston was somewhat old-fashioned. We should perhaps take as an example Thameslink at St Pancras, which simply has two platforms underneath the station, and the trains come in and they go through. Perhaps we should be thinking now—it would cost money, but then, the plan for Euston station is going to cost a great deal of money—about alternative solutions that might take the lines through to a depot to the east of London. Can the Minister say something about the plans for Euston and how open the department now is to alternative solutions?

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, in the late 2000s there was an absolute cross-party ambition in the UK to build a high-speed railway connecting London and the north of England, and ultimately Scotland, and increasing the capacity of our railway was at the core of that ambition. The Liberal Democrats—and I am speaking on behalf of my Benches today—have always supported this. It is not about a nice-to-have, fast, shiny new railway line which we all love, but helping to alleviate the pressure and capacity restrictions on the existing rail network, and supporting growth.

This Statement, the James Stewart review, which is to be commended, and the associated papers set out a damning story of Conservative mismanagement. What should have been a fantastic example of investment, connecting our great cities of Leeds and Manchester with London while boosting economic growth, has in reality been a Treasury spending spree wasting billions of pounds of public money and causing years of delay, based on a political whim of the day. It is a textbook example of how not to build modern infrastructure, and the Conservative Party should be ashamed of their mismanagement.

The Conservative Government focused on a schedule before sufficient design work had taken place—a recipe for disaster that we have seen play out—and constantly changed the scope and requirements of the project. Reading the Statement about HS2 brought back many memories about what happened with Crossrail. There was no real oversight, and there were confused lines of accountability. Key people were not listening to those who were reporting that the build was not on time, and they chose to water down those warnings up the line. There was constant pressure to change the scope, an obsession with an opening date above all else, and a lack of capacity in the Department for Transport to oversee major infrastructure projects.

This reset for High Speed 2 is therefore absolutely welcome. To date, the project has failed to follow international best practice in building major projects. We on these Benches stress how much we welcome the new leadership of Mark Wild, as chief executive of High Speed 2, and his forensic work in unpicking what happened and getting the programme back on track, to a realistic timescale and budget. He took over Crossrail when it was on its knees and turned it around, motivating the team to deliver the Elizabeth Line, which is such a pleasure to use and is one of the busiest train lines in the country. I know he can do the same with High Speed 2.

The project has again shone a light on poor procurement and poor contract management within the Department for Transport. What actions will the Government take to address insufficient capability within the Department for Transport, particularly in commercial and delivery expertise, and client work on major infrastructure projects on this scale? What will the Government do to build trust with local communities and wider stakeholders in this new HS2 project? What changes will the Government make to the governance structure and financing of High Speed 2 to ensure that costs and schedule estimates are reliable? As always, we want to gain wider learnings from this. As I called for after Crossrail—in fact, I briefed a previous chief executive of High Speed 2 and Ministers about the issues we had found during the Crossrail delays—we want to build more transport infrastructure to help our regional economies grow. To do this, however, we need a structure to deliver it on time and on budget.

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

My Lords, I start by emphasising the benefits of a new railway to the Midlands and the north of England. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness referred to the capacity of the West Coast Main Line, and it is not in contention that new capacity needs to be built. Connectivity drives growth, jobs and housing, and the skyline of Birmingham is testimony to Birmingham’s expectations of a faster link to London. Indeed, the Government have put significant money into connectivity for the sports quarter, which, clearly, would not be being proposed were it not for HS2 serving Birmingham in the future. The development opportunities at Old Oak Common are already being realised, as will those at Euston. The benefits of greater connectivity are there to see and are really important for our country and its economic future.

We can also do some big projects. The trans-Pennine route upgrade is a £14 billion project to an existing railway and is on time and budget. But it is true, as both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, that HS2 has gone badly wrong, and it falls to this Government to sort it out, because we cannot carry on like this. Currently, we can predict neither when it will open nor how much it will cost. That is a pretty terrible position to be in and it has to be said the consequences are as a result of actions taken by previous Governments.

I welcome the fact that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness welcomed the appointment of Mark Wild as chief executive and Mike Brown as chair of HS2. I have every confidence that both those people will begin to put this right and fundamentally restructure the company and the approach to the project through a very detailed review of where it is now—because, unless you know where it is now, you will not be able to find out where it is going in the future.

It must be the case that the criticisms of the governance model are justified. Indeed, James Stewart’s report sets out a whole a whole raft of recommendations that the Government have fully accepted. My own department clearly shoulders some culpability. The noble Lord asked what has happened in the department and, although I do not think it is not right to delve into senior personnel, he will, of course, note that a new Permanent Secretary is about to be appointed, the previous incumbent having retired.

We need a new model, but one in which the chair and board of HS2 take a far greater responsibility for the things they should be responsible for. The noble Baroness referred to Crossrail, where it was quite clear that the chair and board were not acting in the interests of the company. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I regard him as the best board member of Crossrail during his time as a non-executive director, because he diligently looked at the progress of the project. Indeed, the then chair of the project complained furiously, to me and others, about the noble Lord’s diligence in inspecting the real state of the project. That was as it should be and it is a shame that HS2’s boards do not seem to have done the same. It is right to have a new chair, and I have no doubt that in due course we will have a new or different board as well.

I will not go through the Stewart report. It contains a raft of recommendations, as I said, all of which the Government have accepted. It is also quite clear that, if you are going to put out big construction contracts, you should have a sponsor capability that is capable of understanding what the contractors are doing as they do it and of measuring how much is done and how much it has cost as it is happening. Mark Wild has found that HS2 itself is fundamentally unable to achieve that in its present state and will therefore change it.

What is in front of us in Mark Wild’s letter to the Secretary of State and the Stewart report is extraordinarily unhappy. Clearly, a number of really bad decisions have been taken. I helped Doug Oakervee with his review in 2020, and his strong recommendation was that the then construction contracts should not have been left in their current form because they had insufficient detail and there was insufficient design and encouragement to the contractors to perform properly and to budget. We can see the result of that here.

I will not go through the Secretary of State’s Statement in detail—because it is already in the public domain—nor the letter or the report. To answer the noble Lord’s question about Euston station, it is clear that Euston station is no longer to be delivered as part of HS2. That cannot be a great surprise because, as the Secretary of State remarked in the other place, faced with a first design that cost a huge amount more than the budget, when HS2 looked at it again, it came back with a design that cost even more—and that is without the air-conditioned platforms that were originally part of the design and were an eye-wateringly unnecessarily feature, since they do not exist even in railways in Saudi Arabia, where you would probably think they might like that sort of thing.

So, it is right for Euston to be dealt with separately. The reason the noble Lord is not aware of a separate company is that the Government have not yet got to that stage. It has taken a long and painful process to get to a stage at which all the parties involved in Euston now agree with the spatial plan, including the developer Lendlease and its new partner, the Crown Estate. The Government are now considering how best to procure that station, which includes an HS2 station and the concourse of the Network Rail station as a combined station, which it always should have been but, certainly when I started chairing the partnership board at Euston, was not. In fact, the original intention was to have two platforms numbered “1” because the HS2 people thought they were building a new railway in a separate station. How stupid was that?

So, we are progressing with Euston as a separate project to be delivered by a separate organisation. There will be more to say in short order, both here and in the other place, but the noble Lord has not missed anything. The state in which even that part of the project was left, after the peremptory cancellation of phase 2a and the statement by the previous Prime Minister that Euston should be built with no public funding, was one where it needed serious work to come to a conclusion. But I do not agree with the noble Lord that we should somehow further alter the design of Euston. We should get on with a plan that works in order to open this railway at the earliest possible time that Mark Wild can predict, at a cost he can predict, and with a delivery plan that will work.

Self-driving Vehicles: Disabled Passengers

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is entirely right. One of the really good prospects here is the provision of public services to people in rural areas where buses, with the best will in the world and despite the Government’s ground-breaking bus legislation, will not serve every need of the community because of the sparse population. That community is also getting older and many people there cannot drive, so there is a real opportunity here for autonomous vehicles fulfilling the need for public services in a way that conventional buses and taxis really cannot.

I go back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which is that we have to design in—as far as we can—facilities for disabled people among this. But we also, as the noble Lord opposite said, have to get going with this, because it is such an exciting future.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as well as the area of accessibility, what work have the Government carried out to determine liability in collisions involving self-drive vehicles as part of this pilot, given that human error will be removed from the equation?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: safety has to be the first priority here. There has been a great deal of work worldwide on this. Clearly, the primary consideration for the adoption of autonomous vehicles is safety, so that people are not endangered by new technology but assisted by it. I will write to her about the precise steps that the Government have taken in the UK on this, but it is of course being addressed on a worldwide basis.

E-scooters, E-bikes and Pedal Bikes: Legislation

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government understand that position completely, and there is enforcement. Last year, the City of London Police seized 324 e-cycles for having no insurance, and the Metropolitan Police seized 1,076. Of course the issue, as my noble friend relates, is not merely illegal use of the cycles; it is the disorder and crime that goes with them. My noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint stood at this Dispatch Box a few days ago talking about the additional measures the Government are putting in place to allow easier confiscation of these bikes when they are used in the wrong way. We encourage police forces to follow the lead of the City of London Police and the Metropolitan Police in understanding that the use of these things illegally leads to further crime.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the investigative reporting by Jim Waterson at London Centric on Lime bikes, and the huge increase of broken legs and serious injuries at A&Es, known locally as “Lime leg”? What plans do the Government have to ensure that comprehensive insurance is in place for hire bike operators?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a good point. I and the department have read the investigation by Jim Waterson. It is concerning that these bikes apparently seem to cause so many breaks of the lower limbs, and I will write to her about the actions that can be taken both about insurance, which hire bike schemes should have, and with the company about the design of its bikes and the damage that they seem to cause on a regular basis.

European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling this debate and for his comprehensive overview of the service, the issues and the need for this service.

Before today’s Question for Short Debate and my preparation for it, I was not aware of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service known as EGNOS and the important pan-Europe service it provides as a satellite enhancement navigation system that augments global satellite systems, helping to improve accuracy. As we have heard, it can help enable planes to land in a broader range of circumstances, helping to improve services and reliability. I am sure this will not be the first time I learn something new in my spokesperson role in this place.

EGNOS is a crucial system for safety-critical manoeuvres, such as navigating ships through narrow channels or flying aircraft, particularly for regional airports. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for clarifying that its full title is the EGNOS Safety of Life Service and for the details he has provided on its use.

Last November, when discussing an SI, my noble friend Lady Randerson requested an update on membership of EGNOS, highlighting that smaller airports such as those in Bournemouth and the Isles of Scilly, as we have heard today, are at a disadvantage because they have been unable to operate safely in poor visibility. Leaving EGNOS has been a costly decision for the aviation industry, including causing issues with training for commercial pilots.

Who knew that yet another consequence of leaving the European Union would be that the UK is no longer part of EGNOS? I have to put on record that Brexit has been an absolute disaster in every single way for our country. This is yet another service that we have removed ourselves from, pointlessly in my opinion and with implications for safety, just for a political headline.

Throughout my decades in public life, I have supported innovation where it is needed, but I also strongly support the principle that we do not need to reinvent the wheel and that partnership working is always the best way forward. This is a great example of that. Why should we not be part of this safety-critical system working with our European neighbours? Why would we look to spend money and time creating our own bespoke system at a cost, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of at least £1 billion just to set it up? It makes no sense.

I will ask the Minister questions similar to those asked by other colleagues. Has rejoining EGNOS featured in any of the discussions about the UK’s future relationship with the EU? The past year has been an important reset moment in our relationship with the EU. I hope it is on the table and is accessible to us, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked. If it is not, why not? When will this be on the table? Surely, as we have heard today, this is not controversial. It is a system that we were once part of that helps to improve the accuracy of maritime and aviation navigation. Surely it is an obvious scheme to rejoin. Liberal Democrats strongly believe in scientific collaboration between the UK and the EU, on which I hope this Government would agree. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.