Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the principle of what the noble Lord is suggesting, but with a “but”, which I hope the Minister will give some careful thought to across the summer before we come back to debates in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is absolutely right that CCUS is extremely important to this country, needs to be progressed expeditiously and provides an important part of how we deal with carbon emissions in the atmosphere, so he is right to bring forward this proposal. My “but” is more broadly related to the range of types of project covered by NSIP. I declare my interests as an adviser to Hutchison Ports and to AtkinsRéalis.

My concern is more about the implications of more and more categories of project being covered by these processes. The issue I want the Minister to address across the summer, before we come to it in Part 3, is that this legislation, when it comes to major projects of this kind, allows developers to simply move ahead, provide compensation to the fund that the Government are setting up and, in effect, clear a site. I strongly believe that the balance of presumption should be that a developer has a duty to examine what is on a site and to take precautionary measures around the biodiversity on that site before they come to take action away from that site. The more we grant permission to those seeking to pursue major projects simply to move away from any environmental responsibilities, the more damage will be done to biodiversity and our environment.

It is not that we do not need change. I was involved very clearly as Secretary of State in the process of taking the expansion of Heathrow Airport through Parliament six years ago, and there were some issues we faced that were nonsensical around the way the habitats directive was applied and which I think defied all realistic common sense. Change is clearly needed, and I accept the principle of what the Government are doing, but I want to see the precautionary principle left in or put back into the legislation, requiring a developer, whether for CCUS or another kind of major project, to look carefully at what is on a site and at how they ameliorate the impacts before they can simply pay money into a fund and wash their hands of what is on the site. My request to the Minister, as he thinks this through across the summer, is to look at what could be done with the legislation to stop the slash-and-burn approach and to leave us with proper safeguards for nature but also to allow us to move ahead with precisely the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is rightly saying we need to do.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to both amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. On these Benches, we broadly support Amendment 51 and we support Amendment 91. Amendment 51 seeks to amend the Planning Act 2008 to clarify that carbon dioxide spur pipelines and carbon capture equipment are eligible for nationally significant infrastructure project designation. Amendment 91 seeks to directly amend the Pipe-Lines Act 1962 to remove the requirement for special parliamentary procedure in cases where a compulsory purchase order is made for a CO₂ pipeline used for carbon capture and storage. Both amendments, in their different ways, seek to make practical changes to help speed up the building and development of carbon capture and storage projects.

The Climate Change Committee was clear that there is no route to net zero without carbon capture and storage. Going forward, we need this technology, particularly for the hard-to-abate industries such as cement and glass, where we have to capture CO₂.

On these Benches, we support carbon capture and storage. It is a key part of our strategy on climate change and to achieve net zero, and we are committed to accelerating the development of such technologies to help further reduce and control our emissions. Indeed, the UK is in a good place for doing this: we have an estimated 78 billion tonnes of CO₂ storage capacity under the seabed in the North Sea from our old oil wells and as part of that declining basin.

I spent a bit of time last night trying to understand the NSIP system around carbon capture and storage. I must admit that I ended up scratching my head a little, because it is not the clearest thing I have ever read, so the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has definitely picked up on an important issue. Trying to understand which bits of carbon capture and storage are NSIP and which are not is easier said than done, so we recognise the need for clarity around these points.

My only real worry with the amendment is that the landscape, as it exists now for planning, is complicated. I took particular note of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that it was a spur of pipelines of less than 10 miles in length, but “less than 10 miles in length” is not in the wording of his amendment. I worry a little bit about whether the definitions the noble Lord has put forward will fit with the existing regulations and that complicated landscape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we fully recognise the need for nuclear power and nuclear generation to be part of our baseload capacity, which is needed to combine with renewables as we transition to clean power. I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, his work and everything that he has done for energy transition. However, I am surprised that he calls these regulations “ludicrous”, “arcane” and “wasteful”. It may be that the broader landscape needs reform and he is able to raise his points with an amendment, but clearly an amendment is not a way to look at the reform of this stuff.

I worry that, were we to rip up regulation in haste, we would repent at leisure. These measures are completely different from the planning process. They are designed for new types of nuclear generation technology, to check whether new designs are safe and fit for purpose. I do not see them as duplicative; they are separate to the operation of the planning system and fulfil different functions. My worry is that, were these two to go ahead in this way, they would serve to undermine confidence in the safety and security of the nuclear processes that we have in this country. Indeed, this is an international standard that is recognised by the ICRP and in the EU and is used around the world.

It takes up to 18 months to undergo these processes, but they start before planning. I do not see exactly how, even if this amendment was successful, it would do much to speed up the new nuclear generation that is needed. The noble Lord’s central argument is that these are duplicative—I do not agree; I think that they are separate—and that passing this amendment would speed up the process of getting new nuclear power. Since the process at issue happens first, I do not think that is the case either.

We will not support the noble Lord’s amendment. Obviously, all regulations need to be kept under review and, if the Government want to do that, we are open to it. However, I do not think that an amendment here is the way—other than to pressure the Government—to look at these things with a broader scope, so we will not support the noble Lord on his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 53B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, proposes a sensible and pragmatic change to the current requirement that, before a nuclear power station is built, an assessment must be made as to whether the social, economic and other benefits outweigh the health detriment caused by ionising radiation. The amendment seeks to disapply this requirement in cases where planning consent has already been granted.

This change is both timely and necessary. We must look carefully at how to prevent nuclear power projects from being blocked or delayed, especially in the context of a wider energy landscape. Notably, the Government are currently presiding over the highest prices for offshore wind in a decade, which highlights the urgent need for diverse, affordable, reliable and resilient energy sources. Nuclear power stations provide that critical alternative—one that is essential to the UK’s growing demand for electricity in a cost-effective and secure manner.

Noble Lords across the House can agree on the vital importance of nuclear energy to our energy strategy. Nuclear energy remains a cornerstone for delivering a cheap, stable and low-carbon supply of electricity. It is crucial not only to meet our ambitious climate commitments but to safeguard energy security in an increasingly unpredictable world. The reliability of nuclear power provides a steady backbone to the electricity grid. As such, it is an indispensable part of our efforts to build a resilient energy system.

We acknowledge that we need rigorous planning and regulatory processes, but these are already in place for nuclear projects. These processes thoroughly assess health and safety concerns, including the risk posed by ionising radiation. While I might not go as far as some other noble Lords today about “wasteful”, “useless” and “byzantine” regulation, I certainly believe that it is duplicative. We therefore do not need to do it again, if planning consent has already been granted and has already assessed those risks. It would create unnecessary complexity and delays, without delivering any meaningful public benefit.

Where planning consent has already been obtained, following comprehensive scrutiny, it is entirely reasonable to disapply this further requirement. Doing so would streamline the development process, reduce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and support the timely delivery of vital infrastructure projects, which are so central to the UK’s energy future. For these reasons, we hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns raised in relation to this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed a number of amendments in this group, so while noble Lords will know that I do not normally speak on transport, I am speaking on my noble friend’s behalf this afternoon.

I begin with the very interesting comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: the efficient use of a charger would mean it being used by more than one person. I would go rather further than that and say that what we want is an efficient use of cars: them being used by more than one person. The practical reality, of course, is that most cars spend the vast amount of their time stationary, occupying public space when they are parked on the road. Coming to an arrangement is where Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, comes in, requiring

“local planning authorities in England to publish and regularly update a three-year electric vehicle charging infrastructure plan”.

That charging infrastructure plan would ideally very much look at that car club kind of model, which could potentially free up large amounts of space in our cities to be put to much better use than simply being occupied by a stationary vehicle 96% of the time—that is the last figure I saw of the amount of time that cars are stationary.

It should be noted that my noble friend did not sign any of the cross-pavement charging solutions. I know that Caroline Russell, the Green London Assembly member, would not forgive me if I did not make the point that, whatever we say about charging across the pavement, the first priority has to be pedestrians, particularly vulnerable pedestrians. We must make sure that anything that is installed or allowed does not create even greater difficulties, on what is already a very difficult streetscape on many occasions, for pedestrians, particularly vulnerable pedestrians, with wheelchairs, buggies et cetera. I note, perhaps declaring an interest, that when I was in Camden I would regularly try not to trip over the electric cable that my boss at the time trailed out of his house and across the pavement out to his car on the street. Because he was my boss, I was not quite allowed to do anything about it.

I want to focus mostly on Amendments 64 and 67, which are about heavy goods vehicles. This is a crucial issue for the environment and for public health. At the moment, fewer than 1% of new HGVs sold are electric, and there are 500,000 HGVs in the British fleet. At the moment, they are emitting the equivalent of 20 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year—the same as 2 million homes. They are also particularly bad in terms of emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which have very significant impacts on public health. That tends to particularly strike in poorer, more disadvantaged areas—think about the homes along busy main roads, which tend to be where people who already have poorer health live. There is also the point that EVs are much quieter, which has significant public health impacts, and they are also better to drive. One of the things we have in terms of HGVs is an ageing driving population, and something that is easier to drive is a significant issue there.

I also note that the Government currently have a plug-in truck grant, with a discount for those who purchase them of up to £25,000. There is a push there, and the Government are spending money on it, but what is lacking at the moment is the general charging infrastructure, and these two amendments seek to have a programme and to make sure that when new depots and other infrastructure is being built, they are covered. I note that at the moment there is still an issue about the speed of charging, but megawatt charging is on the way. When we come to later amendments that my noble friend also signed, we also have to think about the infrastructure of distribution of electricity, to make sure that it is able to cater to that very heavy demand. I think there are very strong arguments here for a concerted, planned and organised approach. What we have now is extremely ad hoc, and in far too many cases we are seeing people literally trailing a cord across the pavement, which is a really bad idea for all kinds of reasons.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the fact that there are so many amendments on the issue of electric vehicles and electric HGVs shows, to my mind, that the Government have slightly missed a trick in not using the Bill as an opportunity to do more to roll out EVs and EV lorries and small vans, and on door-to-door delivery mechanisms, particularly as the targets and the timelines are coming up so quickly.

I hope the amendment will cause the Government to reflect on that and that more progress can be made in this Bill, because it is a real opportunity. It would be remiss of the Government not to seize it, because it lies at the heart of what they are trying to do in the stated purposes of the Bill. I very much welcome the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady Pidgeon. I will speak particularly to Amendments 57 and 58, but I generally support all the amendments in this group.

Private cars are responsible for some 13% of the UK’s total CO₂ emissions—some 60.2 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent in 2023. They are the largest single source within the transport sector, which as a whole is responsible for around 30% of our emissions. Road vehicles, including cars, make up the vast majority of them. Emissions from cars have been declining since 2005, but we still have a long way to go if we are to hit our climate targets, and the time we have to make these changes is fast running out.

The take-up of electric cars is, thankfully, growing. As of mid-2025, around 4% of the approximately 34 million registered cars on UK roads are EVs, totalling about 1.3 million. This goes up to about 7% if we include hybrid vehicles. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that we have further to go and need to do more. Rolling out EVs and making them affordable and practical is a key part of our pathway to net zero. We need to work together as politicians to make sure that we can overcome all the practical obstacles we have heard about, including the cost of affording the car in the first place. We need to make sure that, when people own these electric cars, they can afford to charge them and get the benefits that come only from being able to do so via their home charging points—at night and on a proper tariff that saves them money. If we do not do those things, people will just not make that transition away from petrol and diesel cars in time. We need to make those pull factors work for people. It is really important.

We have seen price reductions in the vehicles, increased government support and the continuing rollout of national charging infrastructure. Taken together, all these measures are helping to change consumers’ choices. We welcome the other efforts that the Government are making: the UK now has 73,000 public charging points—that is welcome—and the charging network rollout is helping to overcome some of the real fears with these things. The projection is that we could have 25 million EVs on UK roads by 2040. The biggest barriers to the take-up of EVs commonly cited are a lack of charging infrastructure, range anxiety—although that technology is improving—and the higher costs of running the cars. This is what we have talked about—making sure that people can plug them in at home.

We really welcome these amendments. It is not good enough that people are facing £3,000 of costs to get this planning stuff done and are waiting 12 to 15 months simply to run a cable across the pavement. As my noble friend said, 40% of people do not have a driveway at home, so cannot do this. This really needs to happen.

I also welcome all the amendments on HGV charging. This is particularly important for last-mile delivery and smaller-scale vans so that we can continue to tackle the scourge of air pollution, which is so damaging to our young people in particular and is such a radical cause of asthma. Luckily, we are beginning to see changes in that space.

We welcome these amendments and we think this really needs to happen. We encourage the Government to go away and think about how they can do more to bring about a joined-up policy on these issues through this Bill. There is more that can be done through the proposed legislation to help bring about the changes that we all want.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I echo many of the comments that have been made, and I strongly welcome the intention from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in bringing this matter to the Committee towards the end of the day and considering the issue in depth through a range of amendments. She was admirably supported by my noble friend Lord Lansley. I think the Government will have taken on board the widespread enthusiasm for doing everything possible to move forward against some of the serious practical difficulties that exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the evident enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and I thank him for moving this amendment.

With an amendment with the headline of planting trees next to new roads, I have to begin by pointing out that, if you are talking about highways and so on, we should not be building new roads. All too often, we are destroying wonderful pieces of nature. I am thinking of standing beside a wonderful oak tree, which would have been a sapling when Elizabeth I was on the Throne, that was threatened by the Norwich link road, Western Link. Luckily, it appears to have been saved by barbastelle bats. Sometimes the bats do win.

Nonetheless, I very much support this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, has made the case for it strongly. I declare an interest, as we are talking about old times, as one of those campaigning to save Sheffield’s trees, which helped to highlight to the nation the benefits of street trees and how important they are to human health and well-being. That is what we are talking about here, as well as biodiversity and nature.

Given the time, I will say just one other thing. I think the noble Lord alluded to this, but it is worth stressing that when we think about trees and other plantings, we think that it is good for the trees, but it is absolutely crucial for other wildlife. We should be ensuring that roads are, as much as they can possibly be, wildlife corridors. Birds are the obvious thing to think about here, but many noble Lords will be aware of the phrase “insectageddon”. The populations at the base of our food web have been collapsing, and plantings beside roads and in urban areas should provide some sort of refuge and restoration here.

I referred previously to the fact that we are not meeting the legal target to reverse the decline in nature by 2030, which of course is in the Environment Act. I will just say one final thing. Noble Lords might be thinking that I am getting fairly small with insects, but I also want to focus on the importance of a rich microbial and fungal world. Just yesterday, the Society for the Protection of Underground Networks produced some really important work pointing out that very few fungal biodiversity hotspots are in protected areas, and we need to have a healthy environment. We need to think about all elements of life in the web in which all our bodies actually live. This is just a small step, but I think it is a very sensible and practical one.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I really appreciate this amendment being tabled and the manner and the style in which it was presented. I welcome the noble Lord’s comments and speeches in this space.

Amendment 60 requires guidance around the planting of trees on highways to be issued within six months of the Act coming into force. As the noble Lord said, this does not require great expense. We feel that it is a helpful, useful measure. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that this is not about development versus nature. Actually, we need both, and both need to be conjoined and considered together, because we, as people who live in the new developments, who need to thrive and not just survive, need these things to work. They are better for all of us. They reduce health inequalities, they make us happier and healthier, and they make our lives more pleasant.

One example came to my mind on this: the work that was done on the upgrade to the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon, which opened in 2020. As part of the upgrade programme, 850,000 saplings were planted by the Highways Agency. Unfortunately, it was done in extreme heat and in poor soils, as a result of which three-quarters of the trees—roughly half a million—that the Highways Agency planted died. They are being replanted, at a cost of £2.9 million, which raises an issue about how we replant nature. Again, I do not want to go into Part 3, but there are obviously issues with trying to replicate nature or move nature from one place to another, and this is a very stark example of that.

Going beyond that, local communities really got involved in this area and I want to thank them, because people went out and planted trees themselves, cared for and nurtured them, and did a great job in trying to put right some of the mess. Some of the trees that were planted were the wrong types of trees; they did not have enough soil around them, so they dried out; the soil they were planted in was bad; the saplings were too young—generally it was not very well done and the trees that were planted were not cared for and nurtured. What tends to happen is that there is a concentration on numbers—it is a numbers game. Every party had a tree-planting commitment in its manifesto—“My tree-planting commitment is bigger than yours”—and that is not what we need. We need trees to be cared for and nurtured.

I suggest politely to the Government that they should focus not on numbers planted but the numbers in five years’ time. How many trees, five years after the planting, actually survive and are counted? If there are not enough, more planting should be done. Trees are really important. This is a valuable opportunity for the Government to look at the strategies and for us to have a broader look at how we do this. So I really welcome this amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support my noble friend’s amendment and the speeches that have been made. Getting good guidance published makes a lot of difference. There are always reasons why a local developer or authority will not do what is best. One can hope that a big authority would have good practices; our big local authority has decided to mow all its wildflower verges in the middle of June—sigh.

Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Will the Minister take a look at regulations? If he can see, as I can, a space there, will he consider saying that if a company comes forward with a safe design for a cheap, low-range, low-speed and weatherproof electric passenger vehicle—for one driver and two passengers, or that sort of size—the Government will support changes of regulations which will make marketing that possible to see if someone will take advantage of that opportunity? Certainly, I would be a customer.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will first turn to the regulations and then to the fatal amendment.

The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome these regulations, which represent a sensible step forward in facilitating our transition to zero-emission vehicles. Zero-emission vehicles, or ZEVs, such as those that are fully electric or hydrogen powered, are often heavier than our petrol or diesel equivalents. This additional weight is primarily due to the weight of the batteries. Since weight has been mentioned in this debate, I will just say that although electric vehicles are heavier than cars of the equivalent size, they are not heavier than the vans, buses, lorries or lots of other things that use our roads.

Previously, this extra weight could push these vehicles into higher driving licence categories, such as category C or C1, requiring drivers to undergo additional training, testing and, potentially, medical examinations and professional competency certificates. Regulations introduced in 2018 attempted to address this by allowing category B licence holders to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tonnes but only under specific conditions: five hours of additional training, driving only to transport goods and no towing ability. These conditions, however, have proven to be an unnecessary barrier to the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, with the cost, time and training required being prohibitive for businesses.

These new regulations remove these previous conditions, allowing standard category B licence holders to drive ZEVs up to 4.25 tonnes without the additional five hours training or restriction on goods transport only. This will significantly reduce the regulatory and financial burden on businesses and individuals looking to switch to cleaner vehicles. This should be something that the Conservative Party welcomes—I understand that it is a party all about removing unnecessary regulations for business.

These regulations also allow the towing of a trailer, provided the combined weight does not exceed 7 tonnes, bringing ZEVs in line with petrol and diesel counterparts in this regard. Furthermore, important provisions are included to support drivers and passengers with disabilities, allowing ZEVs with specialist equipment to weigh up to 5 tonnes on a category B licence. This is very welcome and ensures equitable access to the benefits of these regulations. There is more to do in this space to ensure equal access in terms of the design placement of batteries, which inherently restrict disabled use and access to future autonomous vehicles by disabled people.

These Benches support the decisions to narrow the scope of this flexibility from alternatively fuelled vehicles to specifically zero-emission vehicles. While alternatively fuelled vehicles produce less CO₂ than petrol or diesel, they still produce emissions. Focusing these licence flexibilities solely on ZEVs aligns with the cross-party consensus and the Government’s commitment for all new cars and vans to be zero-emission by 2035 and our legally binding net-zero obligations. It rightly supports the cleanest vehicles.

However, as we have heard, concerns have been raised about the removal of the five-hour training requirement, which was previously considered necessary, requiring questions about potential impacts on road safety. While the Department for Transport assessed the risk of removing the conditions as very low, based on current, albeit limited data—the Minister mentioned very few cases—concerns have been raised that heavier vehicles could lead to more severe damaging collisions, particularly involving lighter vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Indeed, this was an issue that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised.

Against this, we note that these modern vehicles inherently have more safety features, including systems such as collision avoidance. I ask the Minister how the department will

“closely monitor incident data as it becomes available”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/25; col. 375.]

I ask what specific matrix will be tracked and what thresholds could trigger “swift action” to protect the public if a concerning trend does emerge? What is the timeline for publishing the detailed safety guidance? What steps will be taken to actively disseminate it to drivers and businesses, particularly those who run electric fleet vehicles? I call on the Minister to commit to publishing a full and transparent review of all the safety data within two years and for that review to be made public.

Finally, the target for new EVs by 2035 is UK-wide. The Minister has mentioned this, but we have concerns about the fact that this does not extend to Northern Ireland. The Minister has been clear that this is something for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I wish to ensure that we have uniformity of regulations across the whole of the United Kingdom, so I encourage the Minister to continue those conversations with colleagues to make sure that we have the same regulations across our isles.

I turn to the fatal amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is not fatal.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I apologise—the amendment. This seeks to broaden the scope of these regulations to include alternatively fuelled vehicles that are not zero-emission.

I question the perceived need for such a change, to be honest, and what benefits would flow were it to be passed. The Government’s policy, which we support, is rightly focused on promoting zero-emission vehicles in line with our climate targets. Diluting this focus to extend the weight uplift flexibility to vehicles that still produce CO₂ emissions would undermine the clear objectives of supporting the transition to the cleanest vehicles.

Furthermore, alternative fuel vehicles are not subject to the inherent weight disadvantages as they have no need for heavier battery packs, so are not caught out by the previous regulations. They do not have the same excess weight. Gas-powered vehicles such as vans are the main type of alternative fuel vehicles which were in scope of the old regulations but not in scope of the new ones. But, as the Minister has said, the Government’s impact assessment found that as of December last year there were only 28 of these vehicles on our roads in the whole of the UK. Presumably, those drivers have already undergone all their training needs.

The Government’s impact assessment also highlighted that manufacturers do not have provisions to manufacture great numbers more of these vehicles. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats will support the government regulations, but we call for a full safety review to be completed in the next two years. If the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, calls a Division, we will not support it—we will abstain.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. Having listened closely to the concerns expressed, I will respond to the points raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, started with the state of the roads and potholes. I admire his brave actions in driving around the roads of Oxfordshire at the weekend. He says the Government are doing nothing about it. That is far from true. The Government announced a £1.6 billion investment in the state of the roads and remedying potholes only in April. Incidentally, the damage to the roads is an exponential function of vehicle weight. A heavy lorry does far more damage to a road surface than an electric car, or indeed one of these vehicles at 4.25 tonnes rather than 3.5 tonnes. The noble Lord noted that he accepts the principle of these regulations on safety grounds.

The message to synthetic and alternative fuel manufacturers is not that they do not matter—what they are doing is valuable. The noble Lord knows, and he quoted paragraph 5.6, that it reduces carbon emissions, but in the end does not eliminate them.

The noble Lord is—or his party and the previous Government were—committed to decarbonising transport. Earlier this afternoon my noble friend Lord Katz answered the noble Lord’s question with the quotation:

“I believe that the struggle for decarbonised transport, clean development and clean air is as important as the struggle for clean water was in the 19th century”.


They are the words of Grant Shapps, the former Conservative Transport Secretary, and were as apposite a response to the earlier question as they are now to this debate. Decarbonisation is really important and prioritising vehicles that have zero emissions is really important for this Government.

The noble Lord also referred to driving tests, and he is right that the position that this Government inherited was dreadful—there were many, many people waiting for them. I have already answered questions in this House about reducing waiting times and recruiting more instructors, but it will take time to do that because remedying this position is not immediate. The Government’s aim is to reduce waiting times to seven weeks by summer 2026, and we will achieve that.

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred to the effects of kinetic energy. He is right that mass matters in road accidents, but the Government have looked into this quite seriously and the available data suggests that 3.5 tonne to 4.25 tonne electric vehicles are no more likely than their 3.5 tonne petrol and diesel equivalents to be involved in collisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very grateful. That is something the Minister should respond to. I shall not comment further on it other than to say that it is a useful thing to know. But the BMW i3 is not £1,500; it costs a great deal more, and that is beyond the scope of the majority of people.

My noble friend Lord Goschen and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a point about road safety. The Government have given assurances on this. Although I am happy to accept those assurances for today, they will be held to them. We will expect those changes to be monitored for their road safety effects. The Minister has said that and we will hold him to it—it is a very important consideration.

Concerning the state of the roads, much has been made by the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the fact that a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. I know that. Everybody knows a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. It has the word “heavy” in its name. The key difference is that there are 33 million cars in this country. There are 500,000 heavy goods vehicles. The damage being done to our roads is not, as I said in my opening remarks, because of the occasional passage of a heavy goods vehicle down a lane in Oxfordshire. It is done by the relentless passage of heavier and heavier cars across those roads, which is not only leading to potholes but breaking up the base and creating a huge maintenance and restoration bill for our roads that will not, in my view, be properly addressed by £1.6 billion.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Government were given the opportunity to reject the notion that they were going to manipulate driving licences and the conditions on driving licences to achieve objectives related not to road safety or vehicles but to net-zero policy. That would open a door to further manipulation in the future, which could well be used to disadvantage—as the price of a BMW i3 already disadvantages—people on lower incomes. The Government took no opportunity to reject that. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, endorsed it and thought it was a very good idea. That is a cloud perhaps no larger than a man’s hand, but it will come back—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I think there is confusion here. This regulation is fundamentally about removing restrictions, not placing them. I think the noble Lord is confused on this point.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Do I have to read out paragraph 5.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum again? I thought not. I think it is engraved in the minds of most noble Lords that the purpose of the differential lifting of these restrictions is to achieve our net-zero policies. I should not have to read out the whole of the paragraph, because the noble Earl, Lord Russell, read it out verbatim, as if it were part of his speech. In fact, this paragraph was cut and pasted into his speech, so why should I have to remind him? I think he is the one who is likely to be more confused. This is a very dangerous door the Government have opened, and it will cost them votes when people realise what they are doing.

In the meantime, with that remark, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the Government’s Motion.

Disruption at Heathrow

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and join him in paying tribute to the firefighters, all the emergency services and everyone who worked to extinguish a significant fire and return services to normal. This incident not only affected Heathrow but cut power to 63,000 homes, and 100 residents were evacuated.

The Minister is correct that this is an unprecedented incident. I welcome the intention to learn all and any lessons that arise from it and from the Heathrow internal inquiry and the NESO six-week initial investigation that have been announced. A single incident should not have been able to shut an airport. The mere fact that the cascade was not prevented offers us wider opportunities to ask serious questions about our preparedness, the resilience of our energy infrastructure and the urgent need to make new risk assessments with fresh minds.

The fire was the result of 25,000 litres of an oil-based cooling system overheating and catching fire at North Hyde substation. The significant fire required 70 fire- fighters to get it under control and resulted in a series of events that ultimately meant that more than 1,300 flights were cancelled, a further 670 flights impacted, and some 200,000 passengers suffered. We need to understand, at the point of ignition, what caused the fire. Are there flaws in substation design? Was this substation being overused, causing it to overheat? Why does it appear that there was no prior knowledge of the overheating while it was taking place? Could it be that something as simple as a few pounds spent on a remote temperature sensor could have alerted system operations to the problem and perhaps prevented the fire?

I welcome the involvement of the counterterrorism police, who have the skills to make rapid assessments of the causes. I note that in the last few hours the Metropolitan Police has confirmed that this incident is no longer being treated as a “potentially criminal matter”.

There is some confusion over the interpretation of events, and that concerns me. The Government and NESO say that while one of the main substations went offline, two alternatives remained available to provide the power required and additional reserve generation capacity at the airport gave some further limited capacity. Heathrow meanwhile argues that energy supply was insufficient to ensure the safe and secure ongoing operations and proceeded

“to reconfigure its internal electricity network”.

This meant, in effect, that every computer and safety system had to be turned off and on again. It is this act that caused the impacts. I ask the Minister: did Heathrow game plan and stress test the falling offline of the whole of this substation and, if so, what were the predicted impacts and consequences. If not, why not? When is the Heathrow inquiry expected to give initial findings? Will the NESO inquiry work with and have some access to the findings of the Heathrow inquiry? How will fundamental disagreements between the findings of the two inquiries, if they exist, be addressed? When will the Government respond to the National Infrastructure Commission’s report Developing Resilience Standards in UK Infrastructure?

To conclude, wider systemic and broader national risks to our national grid and critical energy infrastructure must be considered. Considering known terrorism-related attacks on other western countries’ energy infrastructure, including undersea cables, I call on the Government to undertake a full review, with the inclusion of the National Security Adviser, of our critical energy infrastructure—its susceptibility, resilience and levels of redundancy—including vital transport services and other services such as hospitals, key computer systems and telecommunications.

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

My Lords, I share the sentiments expressed by the noble Lords who have just spoken about the firefighters and other emergency responders who went to the site of the substation fire when it first broke out and brought it under control. They are undoubtedly very brave and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that when they arrived it was not clear what they were facing, so they were all the braver for tackling it directly. I also share the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to the many workers at Heathrow Airport and, indeed, those who work for airlines, who not only had to work hard to get the airport back online but have dealt with the further disruption caused to flights, not only in Heathrow but across the globe.

I must express great sympathy for all those whose flights were delayed as a consequence of this incident. They are the passengers—the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to them—and many people’s personal and business activities will have been delayed and disrupted due to this very extraordinary outage. I am happy to express sympathy for those people. I hope that, now, as Heathrow is returning to normal, their travels have resumed.

Both noble Lords referred to the two inquiries. My noble friend Lord Hunt, who is sitting beside me, is the Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. He has commissioned the National Energy System Operator to investigate the power outage. That will deal with understanding wider lessons from the power outage. Noble Lords will know that Heathrow Airport Ltd, which owns and operates the airport, has asked Ruth Kelly, former Secretary of State for Transport and an independent member of its board, to undertake a review of its internal resilience. That review will analyse the robustness and execution of Heathrow’s crisis management plans, the airport’s response and how it recovered the operation. The first report, from NESO, will be made to the Energy Secretary, and the Secretary of State for Transport has asked to see a copy of the second report. Heathrow has agreed to that, and we will report back to the House in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked whether I thought compensation was adequate and whether passengers needed an apology. They certainly need an apology. Everybody’s reasons for flying are different, but all of them expect to fly at the time on their ticket. Clearly, they deserve an apology, even though this was an extraordinary event. Do I think the compensation is adequate? The compensation for airline delays is set out, and it depends, in part, on which airline it is. Not only are people legally entitled to a choice between a refund within seven days or to be rerouted to their destination, including on flights operated by another airline, but they are entitled to care and support, such as refreshment or, if necessary, overnight accommodation, while waiting for a delayed or rerouted flight.

The questions about the reliability of the supply, security and the judgments that have to be made by the airport operator will undoubtedly be addressed by the two reviews that have been spoken about. Both noble Lords asked about timelines. We do not yet know what they are, but it would be better for both reviews to be thorough than it would for them to be quick. I know from some experience of this in different transport modes that, very often, you have to dig deeply to find out the root causes and understand what can be done. There is no doubt that the number of systems in a modern airport is huge, and they are very sophisticated. It will take some time to discover whether or not you can get them restarted any better.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked about the expansion plans for Heathrow—not merely the projected third runway but the expansion of terminals. There will of course be a relationship with this. We would expect Heathrow Airport Ltd to have resilience plans, which will scale up to whatever capacity the airport has. I would expect the Kelly review to look at how any expansion would be dealt with and whether or not expansion might make it easier to invest in such systems and resilience in order to obviate such a thing happening again.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is absolutely right to refer to the 63,000 people affected by the power outage. Many of them were not affected for long, but, nevertheless, even in the middle of the night there will be people who need power for various reasons, including medical reasons. Our sympathy goes to them as well.

On the confusion about capacity and the airport’s ability to recover, and the downtime when the power supply was cut off, we are expecting the two reviews to interact on this to a degree where there is no gap between them. There should be no question about whether they are comprehensive. I am sure that the Heathrow review will undoubtedly look at whether there was a game plan at Heathrow and at how much it has stress-tested its systems. I do not have anything further to say until the reviews have reported.

The noble Earl was completely right that the Metropolitan Police has recently reported that it does not believe this was a criminal act and is not pursuing that line of inquiry. I am sure that is a relief. I will look further at the government response to the National Infrastructure Commission report, and if I have anything to say I will write to the noble Earl about it.

Airport Expansion

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to consult the Committee on Climate Change before taking decisions on airport expansion.

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

The Government published their report on the Climate Change Committee’s latest progress report in December last year. The response makes it clear that we recognise the role for airport expansion where it provides economic growth and is compatible with our net-zero target and strict environmental standards. As part of the Airports National Policy Statement review, referred to by the Chancellor in her recent Statement, we will engage with stakeholders on how aviation expansion can be made consistent with our net-zero framework.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

This level of airport expansion is always going to be incompatible with our climate change commitments. It would undo all our work on climate change in under five years. When just 15% of the population is responsible for 70% of all flights, the Government must do more to curb demand. No economy in the world has grown from building runways alone. Meanwhile, in 2024, the green economy grew by 10%, adding £83 billion. Does the Minister agree that what is needed more than anything else are clear and consistent government policies on climate change and green growth, not this damaging policy confusion?