Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendments 5 and 9, to which I was delighted to add my name.

In truth, we live in an era of rapidly advancing technology, when other industries are bending over backwards to ensure their staff are trained to deliver a high level of quality service with an attitude of respect, and when digital means of communication are being used in abundance to ensure that customers have information that is clear and easily accessible. It is shocking to me that an amendment like this is necessary to ensure that the aviation industry steps up and does what should be standard practice to support disabled people—but it is necessary. The reality is that services for, and the treatment of, disabled people in the aviation industry are woefully inadequate—and they do not have to be. We know the issues and we know what needs to change. We now need to find the legislative framework to deliver that change. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5; it is the only amendment to which I shall speak on Report.

I can tell the House that I have now beaten Frank Gardner’s record for being left on a plane. On 24 June, my flight back from Basel left the city 45 minutes late. We touched down at exactly 9.10 pm at Heathrow. At 9.15 pm the plane came to a stop, the seat-belt signs were switched off and we were parked somewhere out in the sticks. The pilot said that the buses had not arrived yet and would arrive in a few minutes. The first bus arrived 20 minutes later at 9.35 pm. The high-lift wagon to take me and other disabled passengers off did not turn up until 9.50 pm, but it turned up simultaneously with the food wagon. Since the plane was on a turnaround for Budapest, the food wagon was given priority over getting the crippled passengers off. So, at 10.05 pm, I and others were taken off in the high-lift wagon. At 10.12 pm, my wheelchair was loaded. Then we set off on a 15-minute magical mystery tour around various tunnels at Heathrow. At 10.25 pm, I was deposited at a door in terminal 5, and at exactly 10.30 pm I got to passport control. Things then speeded up considerably—but after all that delay, my luggage was still delayed.

That is one example—I have a few more I want to give to the Minister—to show that there are two things in this amendment that are essential: training, and returning the wheelchairs and the bodies to the aircraft door or to where they are supposed to go. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench: I am not calling for some massive, gold-plated regulatory regime that will bring up costs; I am calling for some of the current law to be enforced and for improvements to be made. Of course, I accept that it will make no difference if we pass some gold-plated regulations here, because the cartel of airline operators that run IATA will simply not adopt it anywhere else in the world.

I will begin with training. I serve on the Council of Europe, and for the past 15 years I have had hundreds of check-ins at countries all over Europe. There has been one occasion only, and it happened last month at Heathrow, where the guy at the BA check-in desk actually had, for the first time ever, the information I supplied at least 48 hours beforehand. Every other time you send the information to airlines—the size of your chair; the weight of the chair; the batteries; blah, blah, blah—when you get to check-in, they do not have it on their computer. Then you get asked questions again and again—and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is right that they are about batteries, batteries, batteries. They are of course right to be paranoid about lithium batteries: if you put a lithium battery in the hold, whether in a wheelchair or in your phone, it is highly dangerous. But there are two types: lithium batteries, which are removable, and all the other bolted-on batteries—the lead acid ones, including the sealed lead acid ones, and the sealed non-spillable ones—which are not removable.

So they ask you, “Is it lithium?”, and you say, “No, it’s not”. Then, “Can you remove it?”, and, “Well, no, you only remove lithium batteries; you don’t remove these”. “But surely you could remove it”; “No, you can’t remove it”. Luckily, one’s wife says, after those questions have been asked 20 times, “Keep your temper; stay nice”—and, on most occasions, I have managed to do so. There is no point getting aggressive, because they have not been trained. I say to the Minister: that is the vital thing—for God’s sake, make sure the airlines tell them about the batteries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin with the government amendments in this group and start with Amendment 24, tabled in my name, which establishes duties and principles to guide the future use of Clause 1. It is intended to ensure that the power is used, wherever possible, to strengthen air passenger rights and to address barriers faced by disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their time and expertise to strengthen broader air passenger rights, which has helped lead to this amendment.

The amendment seeks to ensure that all air passengers are treated with dignity and have their individual physical and mental health needs respected, and that those with disabilities or reduced mobility are afforded access to air transport services equal or comparable to that afforded to other passengers. The examples that we have heard, in particular the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, set out exactly why we need to do better. I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and I am sure that noble Lords agree that there are many individual members of staff who are good. However, we have also continuously heard that there is terrible, and unacceptable, inconsistency. That is clearly too frequent an experience.

I turn next to Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which would amend government Amendment 24. I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I reassure her that the use of the word “desirability” does not allow the Secretary of State to shy away from their obligation to have due regard. I want it to be clear that Clause 1 is intended to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights, and that this duty reinforces that. It requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to improving passenger rights every time the power is used. However, the impact of policy changes must always be considered holistically—for example, safety, cost, deliverability and wider impacts. The word “desirability” ensures that the regard to strengthening air passenger rights is properly weighed alongside those other factors, so that the Government can act on the full picture.

The second government amendment in this group removes the compensation cap for damaged or lost mobility aids on domestic UK flights. Many wheelchairs and mobility aids are highly customised, specialist pieces of equipment that can cost many thousands of pounds, well in excess of the current Montreal convention liability limit. Removing the cap for domestic UK flights allows passengers to recover the full cost of repair or replacement. That reduces a barrier to travel, gives passengers confidence and gives carriers a far stronger incentive for careful handling.

I turn to the amendments tabled by noble Lords and begin with the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeking minimum standards for passengers who need assistance. I recognise the intention behind the amendment and the important issues identified by the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The Government greatly value that work and will ensure that it informs the next stage of policy development. As I noted previously, government Amendment 19 requires a statutory consultation on accessibility issues following Royal Assent. That consultation will consider all the matters raised in this amendment, alongside wider issues affecting disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, with any necessary reforms capable of being taken forward under Clause 1.

On the amendment on complaints procedures, the Government agree that passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, should have clear and effective mechanisms for raising concerns when standards fall short. However, the detail needs careful consideration. Legislating now risks creating a provision that is either too vague to enforce or too rigid to work well. Government Amendment 19 therefore identifies complaints procedures as a specific area for consultation, with Clause 1 providing powers for any resulting reforms.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has also tabled an amendment seeking clarity on the timing of the consultation under government Amendment 19. As I said on the last group, we will begin that consultation as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The wording is designed not to delay the process but to ensure that the Secretary of State has sufficient time to consider the full range of accessibility issues properly before reporting on the outcome. As I said on the previous group, we will meet interested noble Lords two months after Royal Assent to show what has been done, what is being done and what will be done under my amendments.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for Amendment 23, which concerns who should be consulted. She is right that the consultation must be informed by those with relevant expertise and lived experience. This Government are committed to the principle of “nothing about us without us”. The clause uses a non-exhaustive list so that the right people can be consulted on the right issues without requiring every listed group to be consulted on every matter. We will draw on expertise—including from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—to identify who should be engaged at each stage.

In tabling the government amendments in this and the previous group, we recognise that aviation operates within an international framework of conventions, agreements and regulatory arrangements. There are limits to what any one country can achieve through domestic legislation alone. However, as we have heard, that is not an argument for inaction. Rather, it is an argument for leadership. These amendments are a significant step forward for United Kingdom passengers. We have long been a leader on accessibility and the Government will use their influence internationally to press the higher standards for disabled passengers. Specifically, through our work at the International Civil Aviation Organization and the European Civil Aviation Conference, we will use appropriate fora to champion the UK’s approach to accessibility, promote improvement of standards and seek international alignment.

We will take every opportunity available to raise these important issues at all relevant meetings, starting with those following Royal Assent, such as, but not limited to, the ECAC sub-group on the transport of persons with reduced mobility and the ICAO working group on accessibility in international civil aviation. By strengthening passenger rights at home and placing accessibility at the centre of our approach, the United Kingdom can continue to use its influence internationally and in its engagement with partners across the sector to advocate for higher standards of accessibility worldwide. I note the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to convene an international meeting. I will discuss with the Aviation Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place when we might do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about standards and enforcement. Both are needed—hence the powers in the Bill for enforcement by the Civil Aviation Authority, which cannot currently impose penalties. That is the reason for Clause 2.

Taken together, the government amendments relating to air passenger rights provide a significant and practical step forward for passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility. I therefore hope that the House will support the government amendments in this group and that noble Lords are reassured that the issues raised in their amendments will be addressed through the consultation process and the powers provided by the Bill. On my own position, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that I wish for everybody else only the experience that I have myself when I travel by air.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I make two very brief points. First, it was neglectful of me—in fact, rude of me—not to thank the Minister for the government amendments, particularly government Amendment 24, which will deliver nearly everything that we have been asking for. I echo the wise words of my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Holmes of Richmond in thanking the Minister for all the work that he has been doing to help disabled passengers over the past 10 or 15 years. I am grateful for that.

Secondly, on delays at check-in, what annoys me most is not just the delay I suffer but the delay that the people behind me suffer, and the grumbles, muttering and hateful looks that I get. An able person checking in may take three or four minutes. If I am held up for 15, 20 or 30 minutes, there are 10 people behind me who have formed a hostile opinion of everybody a wheelchair. It is also a horrible feeling that I have held them up. The top priority for me is to speed up that check-in process through training so that we do not hold up the disabled people and antagonise a dozen people behind us.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his noble thoughts on both points.

Railways Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. He was the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office when I was the Minister of State there for four years. He was an excellent civil servant, diligently and neutrally delivering our policies. He was also kind and helpful to me personally. I have always remembered that and will not forget it. I can tell the House that, under his leadership, and under my noble friend Lord Howard and I, the Home Office was fit for purpose then. I wish him well in the future.

Before younger Members of your Lordships’ House wax lyrical about the brilliant opportunities of a new British Rail, or older Members look at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, let me tell the House what the Government-owned British Rail was really like. I travelled on British Rail trains 60 to 70 times a year, from Penrith to Euston, from 1983 when I was elected, and they were the absolute pits. Never mind the jokes about British Rail sandwiches—which were true—they were symptomatic of a nationalised state-run monopoly: “This is the food. It may be rubbish, but so what? You’ve not got any choice”. The trains were clapped out and the organisation was corrupt—not financially corrupt, except that the communist train drivers’ unions got whatever they wanted, but politically corrupt. I recall many occasions when the train made additional stops because the Minister’s office phoned the department and the train made an unscheduled stop to pick up or drop off a Minister on the west coast main line. That was merely doing what they did in the Soviet Union, and it was done in this country until privatisation.

Privatisation was absolutely brilliant. We got Virgin on the west coast and GNER on the east. GNER revolutionised east coast main line services by elevating customer services, introducing premium on-board catering, refurbishing carriages, rolling out wifi and operating some of the fastest scheduled passenger trains in Britain. Virgin was an absolute godsend on the west coast main line. It got rid of the Government’s slum trains. Virgin completely transformed the line by introducing the Pendolinos and the Super Voyager trains. It expanded train lengths, improved stations and provided a wide range of quality food, and it grew passenger numbers from 8 million to over 42 million annually.

They were brilliant operators, but Virgin lost its franchise and GNER gave its up. Why? Basically, the Government got too greedy and demanded too much money from the companies. The common myth is that the shareholders of privatised train companies were making too much money, but it was the Government’s greed that brought them down. They demanded that GNER pay £1.3 billion for its franchise and achieve 10% growth—ludicrous demands from civil servants who had never run anything. They sacked Virgin because Virgin refused to accept long-term pension liabilities for railway workers. There are 350,000 retired railway workers on index-linked defined pension benefits. Who in their right mind would want to accept that liability? Avanti did, and provides a cheapskate service to cover the cost.

There was one big mistake made with privatisation and that was making the maintenance of the railway lines into a different company, rather than tying it to the train operators. Of course, the last Labour Government wound up Railtrack for bad financial management and said that the costs were out of control, with a massive £3.5 billion debt. Now that the costs for the rather slow-running HS2 are £30 billion, £40 billion, £50 billion or £60 billion—out of control—can we look forward to that company being put into administration also?

I have some questions for the Minister. Rather than throw more money at the rail unions, who have now got the Government over a barrel, will he actually invest in schemes to get level access on to our trains? I get it all the time in France, Germany and Switzerland, on many trains. In this country, the step up from the platform to the train is only about 12 inches—apart from Eurostar, where it is about three feet high, for some unknown reason. Will he look at three options? One is lowering the track bed, where it is possible to do so; the second, where the track bed cannot be lowered, as in Euston or St Pancras, is to look at raising platform heights; and the third is to do the research and buy two-tier trains, which they have on the continent. These trains are not any higher than ours overall but they have low-level access between the bogies. I am not demanding that at every station, but there are hundreds where lowering the track bed is possible at little cost.

I have used cripple assistance for about 15 years now. I pay tribute to the fantastic team at Penrith, who have never failed to get me on and off the trains, and the buggy drivers at Euston. Before anyone seeks a safe space from the use of my terminology, let me make it clear that I do not consider myself disabled, just a wee bit crippled. I hope that clarifies matters for everyone.

However, I ask the Minister to please make it simple if we phone in to get cripple assistance. Virgin had a dedicated number, but Avanti has one number for everything. After two and a half minutes of messages about the rail ombudsman, about strikes, about not travelling in hot weather or cold weather and why we should not be phoning in the first place, you have to press button 1, then button 3 and then button 1 again until you get through. Can the new British Rail have a simple online form and a direct phone line to book for assistance? I pick up my noble friend Lady May’s point. How much has it cost so far to repaint or redecorate the nationalised trains with the new British Rail logo? Why is it necessary to do it before the existing paintwork or decals are worn out or past it?

Let us look at other money that may be wasted. We have a demand from the London Underground tube drivers, surely the most overpaid and underworked people in London, that they and their partners get a 75% discount on all the new British Rail trains. That is another 8,000 people to add to the 350,000 railway pensioners and their partners, who also get the 75% discount. The 66,000 staff and partners working for the current train operating companies get free travel on their own lines and 75% discount on other lines. Not to be outdone, Network Rail has given all its 40,000 staff and partners the 75% discount also.

Of course, when all the train operating companies are nationalised, all 120,000 train staff and their partners will get either the 75% discount or, more likely, free travel anywhere in the UK at any time. We are heading to a situation where well over 1 million people connected to the railways will be getting free or 75% discounted travel to anywhere in the UK for the rest of their lives. Will the Minister confirm whether this perk will be extended to HQ staff for the new British Rail or to any DfT civil servants?

The current train operating companies supply food from businesses along the line, some better than others. I suspect we are heading to a government-approved, homogenised, healthy menu for all—no salt, no sugar, no calories, no flavour and no taste. That is a small point.

I conclude with my greatest concern of all: that there will be a drive to cut train running times. Well, I can save 30 minutes on the London to Glasgow run, if we do not stop at the smaller stations along the route, such as Wigan, Warrington, Lancaster, Oxenholme or Penrith, but just at Euston, Preston, Carlisle and Glasgow. That is not fanciful. We have already had some trains not stopping there in the last few years, and civil servants will force the new British Rail to extend it to more trains. They have done it with the privatised companies, and they will have a free hand with the nationalised ones to do even more of it.

I conclude that I have no great optimism that we will enter a brave new world of better rail travel in the UK once we have the dead and incompetent hand of the Government running it.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who has really put his finger on summarising all these amendments incredibly well. As you go through, you can look at each one as an individual case. Amendment 12 is about vulnerable people and where they are seated. Amendments 3, 6 and 15 are about being separated from medical equipment. Amendment 37 is about having a wheelchair passport. Amendment 45 is about unaccompanied minors and Amendment 48 is about offboarding times being reasonable. I will go back for a second to toilets on that one. It is appalling to leave people unable to get to the toilet after a flight and leave them on the plane for a long time. If they have an accident, what happens? All their clothes are somewhere else and they are left sitting on a wet wheelchair. It is absolutely appalling. I note that, on Amendment 58 and assistance dogs, it is important to remember that they also need to do a wee; it is not just the passengers.

I ask the Minister whether he sees it as possible with this Bill to set a standard that must be complied with if an airline has landing rights at a UK airport? If there is a standard that must be met, it could become very attractive to be using UK airports. It would seem to make commercial sense, and it could then apply everywhere. We have focused on Heathrow, but I live in Cardiff. It is a tiny airport, and we have a small number of flights, but everybody should still be treated with respect. One of those standards would simply be for people to deplane first, rather than last. That would make a big difference to people with a disability. The other passengers could jolly well wait five or ten minutes, having travelled for hours. I worry about the selfishness that sometimes we see displayed.

Also, when it comes to wheelchairs and wheelchair damage, we would not accept a passenger having their leg broken by travelling on a plane. As my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson said, for her and other wheelchair users, their wheels are their legs. Similarly, for people using CPAP, their lungs cannot function without it. We are saying that it is okay to let somebody half-suffocate if they need CPAP, but you would not let somebody else half-suffocate. We have really mixed messages. Could the Minister possibly create a UK-wide standard that everyone with landing rights at UK airports would be required to meet, and, if they are repeatedly in breach of it, they might lose their landing rights? I am interested to know.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee—I was in Yerevan in Armenia monitoring the election for the Council of Europe at Second Reading. This is the only intervention I shall make in Committee. I have done an observation role for the Council of Europe for the last 10 years, and among the airports and countries I have visited are Basel, Malta, Crete, Rome, Athens, Riga, Tbilisi, Frankfurt, Budapest, Monaco, Venice, Ankara, Amsterdam, Istanbul, Gdańsk last year, where I met Lech Wałęsa—he is still going strong—New York, Oslo, Helsinki, Charles de Gaulle, Seville, Sofia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Saint Petersburg—I am banned from Russia now—Monaco, Bulgaria, Vilnius, Minsk and Kiev, before the war. I do not have the authority of noble Lords who have moved their amendments but, by God, I have the experience of 100 check-ins and 50 hours of non-stop hassle.

I support the content of nearly all the amendments in this large grouping, but particularly Amendments 1, 6, 21 and 48. The Minister will say that we do not need any of them, since he has a general power in the Bill to make regulations in Clause 1(2)(e). That is okay as far as it goes, but we need to spell out the areas and aspects of disability on which we need regulations made. We should not leave it to officials in the department at some time in the future to come up with some regulations which may not be a priority for disabled passengers.

Let us take the problems wheelchair users suffer in chronological order. At least 48 hours before we travel, we fill in the airline forms about the chair—its weight, dimensions and battery type. Airline forms are all different and some misdescribe the type of battery, and ask if there is an open cell one, which was abolished about 20 years ago. We tell them whether we can walk a little bit and whether we need a chair down the aisle or can manage a few steps. British Airways are quite good with its forms. That is all good stuff, but I can tell this Committee with absolute honesty that at every single check-in I have done, not one word of what we fed into that computer is on the check-in computer. All the information they have is that the passenger will have a wheelchair, and the only training they seem to have is to ask about lithium batteries. Airlines are right to be paranoid about lithium batteries, which must never be put in the hold. Every time I check in, the check-in person says to me, with a look of panic, “Are they lithium batteries?” I say, “No, they’re sealed, non-spillable, dry cell”, which is an official category on the form. The next question is, “Can they be taken out”? I say, “No, they are bolted in. Only lithium batteries are removable”. That is usually challenged with the question: “Why not take them out”? I explain that they are bolted in and not removable, and they weigh 8 kilograms each.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th February 2024 Lords Chamber

In Committee, I said that one of the things that we disabled people chant on a regular basis is that there should be nothing about us without us, so I am grateful for the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that would ensure that disabled people will be part of the continuing review in future, particularly with the reports that he is proposing. If we do not have disabled people involved in design right from the start, and if we do not design accessibility in right from the start, the automated vehicle of the future will not include millions of disabled or elderly passengers.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond on disabled access, except Amendment 8. I should say that I added my name to the amendments, but belatedly. I think my name is on them in the online list but not in the printed listed today.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I think my disabled access Bill is number 14 or 15 in the Private Members’ ballot yet again. It is a simple little measure that says that if a step is less than 12 inches, it should have a ramp for disabled access. Of course, it will not get anywhere; the equality department will block it, as it has blocked it every single time, because it no longer gives a damn about disabled people.

On automated vehicles generally, I am afraid that I trust no one on their safety—not the manufacturers and not the Department for Transport. The only person I trust on them is Jeremy Clarkson. I remember when he said to the chief of Audi, who was boasting about his new automated vehicle, “If you sit in the back, let your vehicle drive the Bolivian highway of death and come out the other side, then I’ll buy one”. That is my view on automated vehicles.

However, my concern today is about automated vehicles for hire as cabs. I have never used Uber in my life. I believe it is a disreputable company which does not pay its drivers properly. Its untrained drivers do not have a clue where they are going, and, if I may say so carefully, many seem to be recent arrivals in this country; they cannot find their way to the end of the street without a satnav, and then they stop wherever the satnav tells them to stop or pick up, such as on zebra crossings or in the middle of the road—the dropped kerb that wheelchair users use is one of their favourites. My main concern is that if black cabs in London, or converted Peugeots or Fiat Doblòs in the rest of the country, are wiped out by Uber’s Toyota Priuses, we in wheelchairs will never get a cab again. I do not rate Uber Access as credible if you want to hire a car this decade.

Has my noble friend the Minister heard of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee? It is part of his department. I have in my hand a piece of paper produced by the department. It says that taxi services must be fully accessible for all disabled persons. It calls for WAVs—wheelchair accessible vehicles—for all, and commends London cabs, 100% of which are wheelchair accessible. It goes on to say that, in the country as a whole, only 58% of taxies are wheelchair accessible vehicles, as are only 2% of private hire vehicles. I shall quote verbatim one paragraph from the department’s wheelchair accessible committee:

“Concerningly, the situation seems to be deteriorating. The launch of Uber and other app-based systems for booking PHVs has resulted in an increase of over 4% in the number of licensed vehicles. But they are nearly all PHVs and, in London, there has been a reduction in the number of licensed taxis which has resulted in an overall fall in the number of WAVs on the road”.


That is what will happen throughout the country if the Government permit all automated vehicles to become PHVs or taxis without building in a wheelchair accessible requirement.

Just look at the chaos in California and San Francisco in particular. Have noble Lords seen on the news a single wheelchair accessible cab there among the thousands of lovely dinky cars, such as Ford Focuses and Toyota Priuses? The Prius and the Focus are marvellous little town cars—great runabouts—but I cannot get my dodgy legs in the back of them, even when I am not trying to get a wheelchair into them.

I say to my noble friend that I do not support Amendment 8. I hope he will not push it, because it would apply to all cars and that is wrong. People must have the right to buy any vehicle they choose, even if you cannot swing a cat in the back of it. Before Cats Protection issues a fatwa, let me make it clear that I am referring to the cat-o’-nine-tails, not pussycats.

I hope the Government will insist that any new automated taxis are wheelchair accessible. If they make that clear in law now, vehicle manufacturers will design them—not that there is much to design; it has already been done. The new London black cabs are absolutely fantastic. They have excellent wheelchair ramps, there is lots of space and, for the first time, they seem to have added springs to them. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Borwick on making that happen. So we can just stick the automated computer thingy on to those cabs, or the converted Peugeots I found in other parts of the country. The Peugeot Tepee, they are calling it—what a ghastly name that is. There are Mercedes Vitos, Citroën Berlingos and Fiat Doblòs. All have wheelchair access. So with automated vehicles it is a simple matter of sticking a computer thing on to the vehicles that are there already. I do not want the Government saying, “Oh, this is going to be disproportionate cost and it is a burden on the industry”. It is not.

We were slowly getting more and more wheelchair-accessible vehicles across the country. The Government must ensure that the new technology of automated vehicles does not set that into reverse, as is likely to happen unless some of these amendments are made—but not Amendment 8.

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I might add a word for the very large number of people who are not in wheelchairs but who depend, like I do, on a stick. When pavements are so awful in this country, they need a lot of consideration. They walk around at their peril, often due to the irresponsible use of scooters, which are insufficiently regulated by the department.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a delight to follow my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who has made a very powerful case for this Bill. I give my full support to this trivial little measure, although I did feel sorry for His Majesty during the Loyal Address: he waited 70 years to make a Speech and he had to read out this little Bill. Nevertheless, I support what the Bill is seeking to do.

These things bring this aspect of London into disrepute. They are usually noisy, garish, hold up traffic already ground to a halt by TfL’s obsession with one-way streets and cycle lanes, and in far too many cases they rip off tourists. Why anyone would get into one without first checking the price and then hand over £500 without creating a fuss and calling the police, I simply do not understand. However, I accept that many foreign tourists will be scared to argue, and if they are paying by card then the crooks driving these things can easily add extra zeros.

I was warned about taxi scams when I monitored the elections in Turkey a few years ago, and I was told to video with my phone any notes I handed over, since the cabbies would say that I had given them only 10 liras instead of 100 liras.

Many years ago, when I could still walk, I came out of a restaurant in Regent Street at about 10.30 pm and could not find any black cabs anywhere. I broke my usual rule and took one of those cars from shifty, little guys offering cheap taxi services. We agreed £8 to get me from Regent Street to Marsham Street, but when we were on Victoria Street, he said that it was now £24. I said, “Not on your life, pal”, but he insisted that it was £24. So I said that I wanted to change my location and asked him to drop me off at the junction of Caxton Street and Broadway. When we stopped there, I pointed out the revolving, triangular Scotland Yard sign and said that I was popping in to report him. He told me to get out of the taxi immediately, and he drove off without taking any payment. I accept that the Bill can clamp down on similar pedicab rackets, and I therefore support it.

But are there any good points about pedicabs? They move slowly, unlike e-bikes and e-scooters. You can usually hear them, because they make an infernal racket with loud, raucous music, unlike e-bikes and e-scooters. Of crucial importance, they have not killed a single person —as far as the department knows, according to a Written Answer to me—as opposed to the silent killing machines of e-scooters. That is why I call this a trivial little measure: we have in front of us a full-blooded government Bill, which will go through all stages in both Houses of Parliament, to deal with a menace that has not killed a single soul, while we are doing absolutely nothing about banning e-scooters, which have killed more than 25 people over the last four years and seriously injured over 100 more.

These are statistics I have on a regional basis: in the east of England, there has been one death and 11 serious injuries; in the east Midlands, three deaths and 24 serious injuries; in the north-east, one death and three serious injuries; in the north-west, five deaths and 24 serious injuries; in the south-east, including London, 10 deaths and 36 serious injuries; and in the south-west, four deaths and 15 serious injuries. I do not have the figures for the West Midlands, but I think that they are almost the same as for the south-east.

What we can say for certain is that, since 2019, more than 25 people have been killed by e-scooters, with more than 100 seriously injured and about 400 with other injuries. By serious injuries, I do not mean broken legs; I mean life-changing injuries with permanent brain damage or being confined to a wheelchair. Many of those were children, mown down by thugs on e-scooters authorised by government trials or used illegally as privately owned vehicles. I have a full Excel spreadsheet with all the statistics across the regions that I will forward to my noble friend the Minister. I will not mention the number of dogs killed and injured, since that would make me too angry in this noble House.

I want to amend this little Bill to tackle the far greater problem of innocent people not being ripped off financially but being killed and injured by e-scooters and e-bikes, and the scourge of them being abandoned all over the pavements. Just pop across the bridge to St Thomas’ Hospital across the river, where the pavement is impassable because of e-bikes blocking the pavement—although they do not block the pavement after I go past, since I can bulldoze them into the road with my big wheelchair. What I and other pavement users have to contend with are the Just Eat, Deliveroo and Uber Eats fast-food bike riders, who drive down the pavement at full pelt all the time, delivering to unsuspecting customers food that they think has been prepared in top-quality restaurants but has actually come from some grubby bulk-cut kitchens under the arches. I am big and ugly enough to fight them off, but tens of thousands of more helpless pedestrians, including the frail, elderly and blind, are now risking their lives daily in London, and some of our other cities, because of e-scooter hoodlums driving at speed on our roads and pavements and abandoning their vehicles on the pavements.

In submitting evidence to the Commons Transport Select Committee in March this year, Sarah Gayton of the National Federation of the Blind of the UK said:

“It is very clear the e-scooters trials have failed, turning pavements into terrifying rat runs for e-scooter riders and dumping grounds for e-scooters when not in use. The trials have shown that even with strict regulations, e-scooters cannot be regulated safely for the rider, for pedestrians and pedestrians who are blind, visually impaired, disabled or vulnerable. Some of the trials visited have mercifully been shut down, along with others not visited which have been turned off and there is an urgent need to shut all remaining ones down as they are still not safe, cannot be regulated safely and are a danger to the public”.


That was the organisation’s conclusion after visiting 18 cities, some multiple times, where e-scooter trials were taking place. Trials in Rochdale, Birmingham and the West Midlands, Coventry, Slough, Kent and Barnstable have already been shut down because of the carnage they were causing.

Now, anytime you raise this with the department, it says that enforcement of the law is a police matter. Of course it is, but this is Pontius Pilate writ large. As we saw last Wednesday night, the Met stood by and did nothing as a baying mob barricaded MPs and Peers into Parliament and no arrests were made of any of those demanding the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews, so do we seriously think that the Met will devote time and resources to chasing after hoodlums riding on the pavement? Of course not, and, to be fair to the Met and any other police force, dealing with terrorism, rape, robbery, murder, housebreaking and the frightening new levels of anti-Jewish hate are far more important than dealing with e-scooters on the pavement. The Department for Transport knows that, and therefore the responsibility now falls on it to legislate to save lives where the police cannot.

The police in Paris, who know a few things about how to knock heads together, could not handle the e-scooter problem, so Paris banned them. What joyous relief it is now to be on the pavements of Paris with no death-dealing e-scooters anywhere in sight or blocking the pavement.

Therefore, in conclusion, I want to amend the Bill to ban all e-scooters in England from any public highway, including pavements, and give police powers to immediately confiscate any they find being used on public roads. All rental e-scooter trials should cease immediately, with greater penalties imposed on cyclists riding on the pavement, especially if they are commercial couriers.

As an aside, I urge our parliamentary authorities to tell the Met Police that, although people have a right to protest, parliamentarians in both Houses have a far more important right, which is to go about our duties free from intimidation, threats and barricades at Victoria station but especially around these Houses of Parliament.

I apologise to have made most of my speech talking about what should be in the Bill, but I am only partially sorry, as I can see no other opportunity in this Session of Parliament to prevent another 25 deaths and hundreds more life-threatening injuries.

E-bikes

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Yes. The Government are extremely active in this area. As I said previously, the DVSA has a market surveillance programme. Each retailer must check that the EAPC is compatible with the regulations. To date, five retailers have been prosecuted and there have been fines and criminal convictions, while many other investigations are ongoing. Such retailers are instructed to recall and remedy any non-compliant products. There is a system for catching these products. If there are products out there that have an off-road capability, for example, where you can switch it to more than 15.5 mph, we believe that those products do not comply with the regulations and we would encourage the DVSA to take appropriate enforcement action.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My noble friend the Minister is right that this is a matter for police enforcement, as other noble Lords have pointed out. However, she knows as well as I do that not a single police force in the country cares about this issue or is doing anything about enforcement. Will she use the powers of her office to gather every chief constable together for a conference and tell them to enforce the law for the safety not just of the riders but of the pedestrians who get mowed down on the pavement every day of the week?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The Department for Transport, the Home Office and the leaders of police forces across the country speak frequently about road safety. The messages about e-scooters and e-bikes are passed on, as are wider issues around road safety. As I say, these are operational decisions for the police; we must leave it to them to make those decisions for themselves.

Avanti West Coast

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My goodness, on that last point, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, although I have had a go in a simulator and was not very good at it.

I agree that recruitment of train drivers is essential. The average age of a train driver is 51. The average retirement age of a train driver is 59. We must get some youngsters and a more diverse group of people into driving trains, because that is the future of a modern railway service that operates purely and solely for the benefit of passengers and freight, which we are very much focused on.

Turning to how we hold the train operating companies to account, I am sure that all noble Lords will have read the ERMAs, which are published. In those agreements are the criteria that we set out for the train operating companies to meet various standards in order for them to receive any performance fees. The noble Lord mentioned a performance fee of some £4 million. That relates to a period donkey’s years ago, way before the period that we are talking about. For example, in the period from September 2020 to March 2021, Avanti received no fee at all for customer experience.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, since I was elected in Penrith in 1983, I calculate I have done the Penrith-London journey, to and fro, at least 2,600 times? Is she aware that I thought British Rail was atrocious, Virgin was a magnificent breath of fresh air and Avanti, I can honestly say, is 10 times worse than British Rail on a bad day? It has cut the trains in half. You cannot book until a few days in advance, and then it is at an exorbitant price with no cheap tickets. When you do book, your seats are double-booked, because bookings are cancelled overnight. Food is often not served. The only thing that works well is disabled assistance, the “cripple buggy” and the people in Penrith who help me out. That works remarkably well. So, now that my right honourable friend the incompetent Mr Grant Shapps has gone, will she ask my right honourable friend Anne-Marie Trevelyan to remove this franchise immediately and give it back to Virgin, which ran a ruddy good railway line?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Well, I am pleased that my noble friend is pleased with the disabled service, which has received a huge amount of investment and insight recently. It is critical that our trains are accessible to everybody, and being able to onboard and offboard a train is a key element to making them accessible. I hear what he says about the service to Penrith, of which he is a frequent user. We all want it to be better, but we have to play on the pitch we have got. In this situation, if there are not enough train drivers to drive the trains, we cannot have the services. We are holding Avanti to account in looking at its plans to recruit more train drivers, and of course we are looking at its performance. No decision has been taken about whether Avanti has a role to play in the future of Britain’s railways. That will be taken by the new Secretary of State. All options remain on the table and evidence is being gathered as we speak.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage
Monday 30th November 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

5: After Clause 58, insert the following new Clause—
“Biodiversity net gain
The scheduled works must achieve 10% biodiversity net gain.”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as in the register as the deputy chair of Natural England. Amendment 5 stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I will also speak to Amendments 6, 7 and 11 in this group. I give notice to the House that I will seek votes on Amendments 5, 6 and 7 unless the Government see light on the road to Damascus or even on the line to Crewe.

First, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the numerous meetings she has held with Peers proposing amendments. If we have not been persuaded, it is no reflection on my noble friend—it is just that some of us are difficult blighters at the best of times. However, on this occasion we think we might have some merit on our side. Noble Lords may consider this an unusual grouping of Peers, but we are all united in our desire to protect and enhance UK biodiversity, which has declined drastically over the last 50 years. We are not seeking to stop or slow down HS2a, but we suggest that a flagship construction project should be a flagship regeneration project for our flora and fauna too, and it can be done at little cost.

Amendment 5 would insert a new clause stating:

“The scheduled works must achieve 10% biodiversity net gain.”


The Government’s policy is that all new developments must achieve 10% biodiversity net gain. This has been welcomed by developers who see it as a selling point for their properties. However, the policy does not apply to national infrastructure projects, which in my view should be leading by example. Indeed, even Network Rail and Highways England have committed to net gain in the future.

Clause 92 and Schedule 14 to the Environment Bill, currently in another place and which this House will get next year, lays down a requirement for 10% net gain, but the HS2 policy is just no net loss. Leaving aside the point that when one destroys an ancient woodland there is an irrecoverable loss, that policy is now way out of date. In 2015, no net loss might have satisfied the public and the then Government, but it is out of step with what the Prime Minister has announced in the last few months and out of step with the mood of the times on to our environment.

Just last week, the Prime Minister said in the national infrastructure strategy that we must build back better and greener. He made the 30x30 pledge and recently launched a massive programme of nature recovery networks. Therefore, the old HS2 policy on the destruction of habitats and wildlife is way out of tune with the Government’s new thinking on nature recovery.

I pay tribute to the Government and to my honourable friend Andrew Stephenson MP, the Minister in charge in another place, for pushing HS2 to do more than just achieve no net loss. This amendment is designed to help my noble friend the Government by putting HS2a under an obligation to achieve 10% overall biodiversity improvement when the project is complete. HS2’s green corridor ambition can contribute to the project’s environmental legacy, but it is unlikely to deliver net gain on its own.

The main misconception about net gain, and this has been said in Committee, is that it would involve more compulsory purchase of land adjacent to the line. That is absolutely not the case. Achieving net gain in this project is similar to the environmental land management schemes being designed for farmers, launched this morning. That would mean HS2 offering incentives for landowners and others to develop biodiversity projects. These may be adjacent to the route or even many miles away. HS2 could fund new woodlands, peat restoration or wetlands improvements and these do not have to be tied to the route. It could fund landowners or organisations such as the RSPB, the Woodland Trust and local wildlife trusts to carry out nature recovery work elsewhere, so long as by the end of the project all the works had achieved a 10% net gain overall.

Natural England calculates that the cost of net gain over the whole HS2 route would be 0.01%, or £100 million. Here we are dealing with a section one-third of that length and a guestimate of costs would therefore be about £35 million. That would be a one-off cost. The wage bill for the 1,389 HS2 staff last year was £109 million, and that will be a recurring cost for 15 years or so. Thus, achieving net gain is a very small cost but a huge environmental gain. We should expect HS2 as the Government’s flagship infrastructure project to lead the way and go above and beyond the minimum and achieve what we will legislate for next year in the Environment Bill.

HS2 is unnecessarily antagonising organisations which would love to weigh in behind it if it would do a little bit more for biodiversity. There will be some who will always be opposed to the project, but many highly respected NGOs would publicly support HS2 if it achieved net gain and saved ancient woodlands.

That brings me on to Amendment 6, and my proposed new clause:

“The scheduled works must not destroy any ancient woodlands, either directly or indirectly.”


A number of ancient woodlands would be damaged or destroyed by the current proposed route. No matter how many new trees we plant, we cannot replace the biodiversity lost when an ancient woodland is destroyed. These are not just old trees. When habitats have been left to develop for 500 years or so they become complex ecosystems holding a wide range of flora. Ancient woodlands have declined dramatically over the years and now cover only 2.4% of the UK. That is far too small a size to sacrifice even more.

I quote from the Government’s own National Planning Policy Framework, which instructs councils that

“development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.

Of course, the Government then list as “wholly exceptional” any old national infrastructure projects where they exempt themselves from the rules they apply to everyone else. In this day and age, I do not think Governments will get away with a policy of “Everyone must obey the rules, except us.” That mood is changing.

If ancient woodlands have to be destroyed, Natural England proposes a replanting ratio of 30:1. That seems high but it is a recognition that you have to plant a lot more new trees if you are going to try to ameliorate the damage done by the loss of ancient woods. I shall say no more on this subject, on this amendment, because I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is an absolute expert on this matter, will talk about ancient woodlands. I look forward to hearing what she has to say about this amendment and her Amendment 13.

My last amendment, Amendment 7, seeks to insert a new clause stating that:

“All plants and trees planted on any of the land on which the scheduled works take place, or in mitigation of the effects of those works, must be … British native species, and … sourced in the United Kingdom.”


This is not a little Englander new clause, suggesting that I do not want nasty foreign trees when we have left the EU, but a recognition that our native wildlife needs native plants and habitat to survive. For tens of thousands of years our native fauna has survived and developed in a habitat of native British flora. Putting it simply, we cannot have native red squirrels unless we have the native trees producing the nuts, fruits and seeds on which they survive. The Back from the Brink project, to recover 20 species from near extinction, depends on native habitats.

This new clause is necessary because HS2 plans to plant one-third of the plants and trees from latitudes of up to two degrees south of the midpoint of the route. Planting trees from further south may make sense for commercial forestry, guarding against climate change, but does nothing to help our native fauna survive. Eucalyptus trees from France may be very good for timber but I understand their leaves are toxic and that only koala bears and possums thrive on them and we do not want those species running around our woods. Thus, we need UK native trees and plants to support our native wildlife. However, I mention that as an extreme example and I do not expect to see these exotic species from France, but it is highly likely that the one-third will be sourced from the largest supplier of trees and plants in Europe: the Netherlands. Last year, we imported £1 billion of trees and plants from Holland.

As colleagues will know, we face an increasing threat from diseases unwittingly imported along with plants sourced from abroad. Even if we step up biosecurity when we leave the EU, there will still be an enormous risk of bringing in destructive bugs and diseases. For any imported seed stock, HS2 must follow the relevant hygiene regulations as set out in the Plant Health (England) Order 2005 and it must comply with the latest biosecurity certification standards on planting and importation. But that is what is supposed to happen at the moment for all imported seeds and plants and yet we have ash dieback, oak processionary moth and spittlebugs, and God help us if Xylella fastidiosa gets here because it can destroy 500 different tree species. Of course, many bugs and diseases are hidden in the soil.

No doubt noble Lords with more expertise than I will correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the case that every single bug and disease which has devastated our trees and plants has come in from abroad despite the best efforts at port control with phytosanitary measures? Do not take my word for it on the risk. In July 2019, the Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture issued a warning to all its members saying that they had to take special care that they did not export the oak processionary moth to England along with all the English oaks they exported to us. If even the Dutch exporters are warning about the dangers of their products, should we not exercise a bit more caution? The one-third foreign planting advice satisfies the technical advice from the Forestry Commission and Natural England, but I am suggesting that we should be more cautious than the technical advice. The danger is not foreign eucalyptus but foreign English oaks.

At this precise moment—or he may have finished now—my noble friend Lord Gardiner is upstairs in the Grand Committee taking through a large SI on protecting us from invasive non-native species. A week today, he is taking through a massive SI with 13 annexes on plant phytosanitary conditions. Defra is well aware of the threat but it seems that the Department for Transport is not. That is why a requirement on acquiring plants from UK sources is so important. It will also be good business for UK nurseries that can easily supply all that would be required. We have a huge range of UK native trees and there is no excuse not to use them. One has just to look at the Woodland Trust website to see the full range and all animals, birds, butterflies and other species that depend on our native flora for survival.

I have just read, this weekend, the Woodland Trust publication, published this month, called Tree Provenance Choice in a Changing Climate, which addresses this biodiversity argument. The Woodland Trust says:

“For woodland conservation, resilience, and enhanced biosecurity, evidence suggests that tree seed sourced from local UK provenances will be best adapted for UK sites in the long term … Wherever possible, trees should be sourced from within the UK in order to prevent further introductions of damaging pests and diseases.”


Again, I say simply: do not take my word for it but listen to the experts on this occasion.

I want to say a few words on Amendment 11. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has drafted—in my opinion—a more detailed and better amendment than mine. I look forward to her speaking on it, but I will seek a vote on Amendment 7 if the noble Baroness does not seek one on Amendment 11.

I cannot see any downside to the Government accepting Amendments 7 or 11. They carry no extra cost, give a big boost to UK plant growers, provide native trees and plants for our native wildlife, and are a 100% cast-iron guarantee that we will not bring in another devastating plant disease. It is a win-win-win-win for all of us but especially our tress and wildlife.

I apologise that I have spoken at length on these amendments, so I will not try the patience of the House by speaking to any other amendments today, but I do support Amendments 10 and 13 in another group, when they are reached.

In conclusion, the cost of what we propose here for this short part of the route is infinitesimally small in comparison with the overall cost of the project. Our amendments would not slow down construction. If we are to have a world-class new railway, we should preserve our existing world-class woods and wildlife—what remain of them. HS2 should guarantee a substantial environmental legacy that is commensurate with the status of a flagship government infrastructure project. I hope that the Government might accept these simple amendments of mine or that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I beg to move.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is an extremely great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He has made a very eloquent case for all the amendments in his name and those that I have signed with him. First, I draw attention to my environmental entries in the register of interests.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope my intervention has provided some clarity to the House, and that my noble friend Lord Blencathra is feeling satisfied and will therefore withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, naturally I am grateful to all noble Lords, both here in the Chamber and online, who have spoken both for and against my amendments. Since I spoke at length in moving them, I shall be as brief as possible now.

On Amendment 5 on net gain and Amendment 7 on native-sourced trees, I feel that the Government have not really won the argument. I have seen a note from the Government today—and my noble friend the Minister repeated the point—saying that Amendment 5 would be disproportionately expensive, could entail redesign of the scheme and would turn valuable farmland into biodiversity sites. That really is a bit desperate. Disproportionately expensive? We estimate £35 million out of a total HS2 cost of £106 billion; £35 million is just a four-month wage bill for HS2 staff.

The suggestion of redesign of the scheme is just nonsense. There is no redesign of the scheme involved in offering incentives to farmers and NGOs to voluntarily do some biodiversity schemes, either near the route or elsewhere. What redesign is involved in giving the Woodland Trust, say, £2 million to restore some ancient woodlands—or in giving the RSPB £2 billion to develop wetlands somewhere else? There is no redesign involved at all. God help us if that is what the Department for Transport officials think “net gain” means. At this stage, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson: HS2 boasts that it is trying to achieve no net loss. I have never seen anything that says that HS2 will achieve net gain. If it were achieving net gain, none of us would be speaking in favour of these amendments; they would not be necessary.

The other argument against Amendment 5 is that we would lose valuable farmland to biodiversity. Does the Department for Transport never talk to Defra? Today, Defra has launched the most massive scheme in our history to incentivise farmers to use land for biodiversity purposes. The Secretary of State, my right honourable friend George Eustice, said that it is the most significant change to farming and land management in 50 years. All my Amendment 5 on achieving 10% biodiversity net gain seeks to do is to replicate that voluntary scheme for HS2 phase 2a, and get other volunteers near the route or somewhere else to do some biodiversity net gain.

With regard to Amendment 6 on ancient woodlands, I accept that if every ancient woodland were to be avoided, that would result in route changes. That is unlikely to happen, and I accept that; I accept that this was my weakest amendment. However, I want to vote on it to signal to HS2 that we do not want this to happen with further legs. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, we will be here in a couple of years’ time—or six months’ time, according to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—looking at the next leg, another leg that will bulldoze through more ancient woodlands, and when we complain about it the department will say “Oh, it’s too late to change it now, it would mean route redesign and greatly increased costs.” I would like Peers to vote for Amendment 6 as a signal to HS2 that we do not want more ancient woodlands destroyed, up with which we will not put.

On Amendment 7, I just do not understand where the Government are coming from. We are talking about woodland to support native wildlife, not simply planting commercial forestry for timber. I accept that the advice of the Forestry Commission, on one-third of seeds from warmer climates to guard against climate change in future when you are looking at a crop lasting 50 or 70 years, may be perfectly valid to support commercial timber growing, but in the woodlands we are looking at a lot of trees that will be short and stumpy things, since Network Rail hacks down anything above 20 feet in any case if it gets too tall and interferes with the lines, which is fair enough. Is it seriously suggested that we need trees from warmer climates since one-third of our species will not survive the next 20 or 30 years? In this sort of planting for native wildlife, we are looking at the natural regeneration of rowan, holly, birch, wild cherry, hawthorn, blackthorn, alder, crab-apple and things like that. I have seen no evidence that climate change—which I agree will happen—will be so drastic that the species I have mentioned will not survive the next 20 to 30 years or so.

I listened with great care to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Lucas. I am happy, if we can guarantee that no plants come in from abroad, that we are going to get biosecure seeds that will be grown in this country. That is an improvement. I simply do not trust HS2 to go for that option. If some big supplier in the Netherlands does a deal for plants that are a fraction of the price—I have bought plants from the Netherlands for my gardens over the years at dirt cheap prices; unfortunately, half of them died but that was probably my fault—then HS2 will go for that. So I would like to push that amendment to a vote too.

My noble friend Lord Caithness was right: I should not have said that by taking nothing from abroad we are 100% guaranteed not to get new diseases, but we will have severely diminished the risk. I accept that some may come in airborne or in timber, but if we do not import plants or trees from abroad, at least we will 100% guarantee that we will not get soil-based or plant-based bugs or diseases, although the risk of airborne ones is still there. We cannot catch every disease that we may import but we can severely reduce the chances.

It is with regret that, for the first time in nine years in this House, I wish to push my Amendment 5 to a vote—against the Government’s advice—as well as, I am afraid, the two amendments afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

6: After Clause 58, insert the following new Clause—
“Preservation of ancient woodlands
The scheduled works must not destroy any ancient woodlands, either directly or indirectly.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

We now come to Amendment 7. Does the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, wish to move it?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

In view of the fact that we are running very late, and there is an important Covid Statement coming up, I do not wish to try the patience of the House—or of the Chief Whip, for that matter, so I shall not move Amendment 7.

Amendments 7 and 8 not moved.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, after I put this amendment down, it was slightly taken over by events in the form of an interesting letter from the Public Accounts Committee to the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport dated 4 November. I was interested in the comments made during the various stages in the Commons on this Bill, when many Members of Parliament were critical of the way HS2 handled issues in their constituencies. This came from all parts of the House. From what I have read and heard, this criticism was much more justified because the situation seemed to be much worse than in the case of the promoters of HS1.

One issue was the lack of information, so I thought that it would be reasonable to ask that HS2 and the Government provide quarterly reports that include overviews of the project, the programming schedule, the community and environmental impact of the whole project and more details of each phase. Since then, or probably at about the same time, Ministers have started to produce six-monthly reports, which are a great step forward. I thank Ministers for that. Whether they should be quarterly or six-monthly can be debated, but certain things are missing from all of them—they are identified strongly in the Public Account Committee’s letter. I will summarise one or two, because I think that they could go into the reports. I hope that Ministers will agree to do this, because we do not want to have to divide the House on something like this.

The PAC talks about the programme uncertainties within HS2. There seems to be evidence of that and it is frustrating that there are so few signs that HS2 and the department are taking PAC concerns about transparency seriously. It asked for information and did not get it. There were questions about phase 2b—my noble friend Lord Adonis mentioned this—and the implications for rail connections in the north as well as decisions on Euston Station.

Then there is the question of value for money. We have talked about that before, but it relates to the post-Covid potential demand for travel. The letter points out that, in giving evidence to the committee, the Permanent Secretary, Bernadette Kelly,

“appeared to assume that travel patterns and growth will return to, or be the same as, those before the pandemic. This assumption should be thoroughly tested and explicitly justified, if it remains the Government’s best estimate.”


There was then something that one does not often see in letters from the PAC: a recommendation, although some people would call it a demand. It suggested that,

“you perform an up to date assessment of the different scenarios that could affect the long-term business case of HS2 as a result of the pandemic … Please write to us within six months”.

I have raised in the House on various occasions the question of future demand for all railways. My impression is that Ministers are not taking it seriously at the moment, or perhaps they do not have an answer. Well, nobody has an answer, but I suggest that at least it should be part of some scenario planning: we are not going to get one answer, but we can probably get a range. It is reasonable to ask for the revenue forecasts and the cost-benefit analyses, whether it is every three months or every six months. I hope that the Minister can say that, as part of the six-monthly reports that they are now providing, they will in future add in some of the things that I suggest are missing. They would fit in nicely with the response that, presumably, Ministers are going to give to the PAC. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I perfectly understand the need for the Committee to have a break and a stiff drink after any of my speeches; it is just a pity that we cannot get the stiff drinks any more. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on this group. I wish the Government had implemented his report rather than the Oakervee one, but that train has long since left the platform.

I will speak first on Amendment 9, on which I declare my interest as in the register. I am embarrassed to be so high up in the speakers’ list when there are so many experts, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lord Randall, who are better qualified than I am to talk about ancient woodlands. This is a modest little amendment, calling simply for an annual report on the impact of the work on ancient woodland. I also support Amendment 4 in this group, which is much more demanding than the modest request in Amendment 9.

Network Rail’s Enhancements Pipeline

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

Will the Minister appoint me to run Network Rail? I will bring to bear exactly the same skill set: I will lie about the initial cost of projects by a factor of four, just to sucker the Government into approving them; I will deliver them five, 10 or 15 years late; I will let the costs rocket out of control and not care; and I will have a salary of half a million pounds please, which is a big cost saving. Am I suitably qualified?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am sure that my noble friend would like me to say that I will of course appoint him to lead Network Rail, but, unfortunately, he is going to be disappointed. He slightly underplays the huge developments in recent years as we established the RNEP. It was established only in 2018 and what it tried to do—and indeed does—is to put in one place, open for scrutiny, all the projects that we are considering, whether they are at the initiation, development, design or delivery stage. We provide updates every quarter; that is good transparency and provides for good scrutiny.