Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 September be approved.

Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.

Motion agreed.

Airport Expansion

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they have received regarding the implications of net airport expansion for the United Kingdom’s net-zero target and economy.

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

My Lords, the Climate Change Committee, CCC, is the independent adviser to the Government on climate change commitments, including aviation. The Government have committed to routinely engaging the CCC as part of the Airports National Policy Statement review on how expansion can be made consistent with our net-zero framework. We continue to work closely with the aviation sector on decarbonisation and growing the economy, including through the Jet Zero Taskforce.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the aviation industry will never be environmentally sustainable, and this Government really ought to understand that. At the moment, the 15% of people who take 70% of the flights are protected from paying fuel duty, whereas train travellers are not, and potentially EV drivers as well. Therefore, why not tax frequent flyers, make train fares cheaper and leave EV drivers alone?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

This Government are making huge efforts to make the aviation industry more sustainable. There is a Bill before the House on the sustainable aviation fuel policy. The Government are also pursuing airspace modernisation and providing up to £2.3 billion over 10 years to extend the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, supporting the development of next-generation sustainable technologies. The distance-band structure of the air passenger duty already ensures that those who fly furthest and have the greatest impact on emissions incur the greatest duty. Similarly, given that the air passenger duty is charged on all UK departing flights, those who fly most often pay more.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, rather than discouraging air travel, surely the aim of the Government should be to encourage sustainable aviation. Can my noble friend the Minister say a little more about what progress we are currently making on the sustainable aviation fuel targets?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. The sustainable aviation fuel mandate, which is already in force, seeks to reduce aviation emissions by up to 2.7 of a unit that I cannot describe—it is called MtCO₂e, if anyone here knows what it is; I am sure someone does—in 2030 and by up to 6.3 in 2040. A lot of work is going on, and the House will shortly debate the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, which seeks to increase manufacturers’ sustainable aviation fuel. Together with the investment I already discussed for the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, this will all contribute to a future sustainable aviation industry.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, what specific work are the Government undertaking to understand the emissions not only from aircraft but from the surface-access and freight traffic associated with airport expansion? How can the Government meet net-zero commitments while supporting airport expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Previous Questions in this House have dealt with the construction of the third runway in relation to carbon. The Government expect those two schemes, which are being taken forward, to demonstrate how carbon reduction applies not only to the construction of the runway itself but to the freight traffic and surface transport implications of the third runway. Those factors will be taken into account. There is no reason for the expansion of Gatwick—and, for that matter, of Stansted and Luton—to be incompatible with that of Heathrow. Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport and deserves to be of a size that can increase economic growth for the whole country.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Following the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I would like to help the Minister. The current Airports National Policy Statement states that it expects Heathrow to have

“landside airport-related traffic … no greater than today”—

namely, in 2018, when the document was published. Can he state—I think this would help the noble Baroness —whether the same requirement will appear in the new airports national policy statement, which will appear next year and be the basis for the Heathrow expansion?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord will of course recognise that things should have moved on from 2018 but have not. This Government are determined for the first time to move forward with the expansion of the UK’s only hub airport. The statements made in the Airports National Policy Statement in 2018 will be reviewed in the light of the two proposals the Government are currently pursuing, and we will choose one of them before the end of November. The necessary alterations to the draft new airports national policy statement will be available next summer.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister answer a question that is very puzzling to me? When we proposed airport expansion, it was about increasing business traffic into this country. Since Covid, that has simply not been the case; so much business is done online, and in fact, what we are benefiting is tourism. A recent report from the New Economics Foundation found that in 2023, we exported £41 billion abroad, and this is a deficit. What is the logic, given that we are all encouraged to do things online, of vastly expanding our airports right now?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Heathrow is as congested now as it was before Covid, and it will remain congested unless more capacity is given to it. The previous questions on this subject in a short debate we had a few days ago rightly suggested that not only human traffic but goods and services are important—although we did have a debate about whether books or salmon were the most valuable or frequent commodity to be transported. The point is this: the airport is full, it remains full and for the benefit of the British economy, we need to expand it in order to get more flights and build the economy in this country.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I share the concerns expressed about the environmental disbenefits of a third runway at Heathrow Airport, while understanding the potential economic benefits. As the Bishop of London, I have spent time with Reverend Richard Young of St Mary’s Church Harmondsworth, and with residents whose homes and communities lie within the proposed demolition zone of the third runway. They have faced uncertainty for decades, and under the potential proposals, they will continue to face uncertainty for years to come. What are the Government doing to allay their fears and the uncertainty faced by these communities, and to ensure that Heathrow Airport itself provides the appropriate support to them?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for her question. The best thing the Government can do is move forward on this for the first time. The debate about the third runway has been going on for years and years, and the airport is as congested as it ever was, as I said. The residents she refers to, in Harmondsworth, Sipson and other villages, have no satisfaction about the future because the future has been uncertain for a long time. The best thing we can do is to get on with this and make a decision. Of course, we would expect whoever the promoter is to actively work to look after the communities affected by the third runway development.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on moving on with proposals that originally came in the 2003 White Paper, which, as Minister for Transport, I had some hand in. I also point out that our very successful aviation industry is beneficial not only to the economy as a whole but very much to local communities around our main airports, providing well-paid, unionised jobs. Will he get on with it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Well, what can I say to my noble friend, who not only asks this question but gives all the answers as well? I think that will do.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are absolutely right to be pressing ahead with the expansion of Heathrow Airport; it is long overdue. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill will, I hope, answer some of the questions about the environmental impacts.

However, I am concerned about the debate between a short runway and a long runway. Whatever the outcome in the medium term, may I seek assurance from the Minister that we will at least still go ahead with the DCO for the full plan? If we do not, we are going to end up short-changing ourselves again. In the end, Heathrow needs to expand, and it needs to expand properly. Please ensure that that is what happens.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. That is a premature request, because he will know—and maybe the rest of the House does as well—that the two schemes being taken forward are different, and the length of the runway proposed is different. A decision such as the one he suggests ought to be taken as we go forward with one of the two schemes.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to extend Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which I shall refer to as the POFA to save time. This will ensure that the recovery of unpaid parking charges on railway land is enforced consistently with other private car parks and has the relevant safeguards provided for users of those car parks, including an independent appeals service. It will also ensure consistency in the regimes applying in railway car parks across the railway network through the extension of this order to cover England and Wales.

Noble Lords will wish to know that, after the draft order was laid on 8 September, it was formally cleared by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its Thirty-fifth Report of Session 2024-26. Likewise, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee formally cleared the draft order as an instrument but named this amendment as an instrument of interest to the House in its 36th Report of Session 2024-26. Prior to this, my department had responded to preliminary inquiries from the committee’s clerk.

The background to the draft order is that railway operators currently use a combination of enforcement regimes to recover unpaid parking charges at railway station car parks, resulting in inconsistency and complexity for operators and passengers. Some operators rely on criminal enforcement set out in the Railway Byelaws, while others use agents who rely on contractual agreements with motorists. With the introduction of Great British Railways, my department expects a consistent level of service to be offered across the network to passengers. Therefore, the order will bring car parks located on railway land within England and Wales into the scope of the same civil enforcement regime that applies to all other car parks on private land.

Previously, railway station car parks were excluded from the POFA because they were subject to the Railway Byelaws, which meant unpaid parking charges could be enforced only under those by-laws. The POFA made a number of changes to the law related to parking on private land. It bans vehicle immobilisation and/or removal without lawful authority and provides private landholders with additional powers to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges, providing certain conditions are met. Schedule 4 to the POFA facilitates the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle parked in a private car park. It sets out detailed requirements regarding the provision of notices and the appeals process. However, as I have said, railway station car parks are currently excluded from this regime.

The change which this order enables will ensure a consistent civil enforcement regime for all railway station car parks across the future Great British Railways network. It will ensure that passengers have the same protection that they would have when parking in other car parks on private land, including access to an independent appeals service. An industry consultation showed support for amending the Railway Byelaws to remove criminal liability for parking breaches and instead using the civil enforcement regime set out under the POFA regime.

These changes will standardise the approach to the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle parked in railway station car parks. To support this order, changes to the Railway Byelaws will be made at the same time to remove the criminal enforcement regime which is currently in place and allow this amendment to take effect. This shift from the criminal enforcement regime to the civil regime provides passengers with an independent appeals service and allows the same framework to apply to railway station car parks as applies to all other private car parks.

I have highlighted the importance of this order to ensure that passengers have access to a consistent civil enforcement regime when recovering unpaid parking charges on railway land and an independent appeals service. I therefore beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I am pleased to speak in the debate about this amendment order. As the Minister has set out, the order amends the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to bring land subject to the Railway Byelaws within the definition of relevant land to facilitate the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle parked in a station car park. This will bring simplicity. It brings railway car parks into line with other car parks, which will allow private parking operators to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle rather than just the driver for unpaid parking charges, which has been an anomaly for some time.

The consultation on this matter was launched in 2020, so I ask the Minister why it has taken over five years for this small order to appear before the House. It seems uncontroversial, and over five years seems a long time. I know that signage costs were one concern raised in the consultation, but the background note explains that budget provisions have been made to cover this, so that should not be a reason for the delay.

In principle, we welcome this rather technical change and the fact that a consultation took place. However, as anyone who has been an MP or an elected member of a council or an assembly knows, parking and parking fines are always controversial. MPs and councillors receive much casework expressing frustrations and problems with many car parking operators and providers, who often lack transparency and are unaccountable; they can sometimes seem unreasonable. Clear and new signage that is accessible is welcome, but what is the timescale for implementing the new code for private car park operators, which has been consulted on recently?

The public need to have confidence in the overall regulatory framework covering private car parking providers to ensure they have greater transparency and consistency, that they are not being unfairly penalised and that they have that forum for appeals when things have gone wrong. Will the Minister ensure that resources are in place so that operators comply with the forthcoming code, particularly regarding signage, fair changes and independent appeals?

Finally, I understand the Government’s assessment that a statutory review of these regulations was judged disproportionate. However, will the Minister commit to revisiting that decision if there is evidence of unforeseen consequences for operators or users of the relevant land from this order? I await the Minister’s response with interest.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument seeks to amend the Protection of Freedoms Act. The moment one sees a Labour Government fiddling with our freedoms, one is naturally anxious as to what they have in mind. That Act was one of the great achievements of the coalition Government—in fact, it was a Liberal Democrat-inspired achievement—from those happy days when the country was run by a quad of David, George, Nick and the red-headed guy, whoever that was, but now it is being amended, so one looks very carefully at what is proposed. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, it is much less dramatic than it might be and it is, in essence, to do with enforcement at railway station car parks.

However, I have some questions. I am interested in the thinking and timing behind this order, particularly in how it fits with the proposed architecture of the rail reform Bill, which was published for the first time last week and is, therefore, now available to us so that we can scrutinise the Government’s plans for railway reform.

The basic position is that car parks at railway stations are currently covered by railway by-laws. What is wrong with that? It turns out that the by-laws are unsatisfactory in some respects. So it was open to the Government to come to this House with a view to amending the railway by-laws that govern station car parks—keeping it all within the railway family, if you like—but that is not in fact what they have done. The Department for Transport has not taken us down that track; instead, it is, in effect, outsourcing the whole matter to an MHCLG code of conduct. How does that fit with our plans for a single directing mind for railway infrastructure?

The department is also doing this at a very strange time because, again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, pointed out, the Government are in the process of consulting on a new code for the private enforcement of car parking. I believe that the consultation closed only in September, which is very recently. Of course, it is too early for MHCLG to have finished its consideration of that consultation or to have issued its plans for the future, so we do not know what we are actually being invited to impose on drivers who are parking their vehicles in railway station car parks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, complained, quite rightly, that it has taken five years since the consultation was undertaken to bring this order forward. My complaint is that, now that it is coming forward, it is being done in a very rushed manner when, given where we are with the consultation on the code of conduct, it would be a great deal more sensible if the instrument were to wait until we knew what that code of conduct said. Indeed, one would have thought that the train operating companies currently being absorbed into the Department for Transport—that is, the train operating companies or Great British Railways, which is going to replace them—will want to know as much as I do about what the enforcement regime will look like, once the new code of practice is in place, before they relinquish their powers under statutory by-laws, which, as I understand it, the Minister can extinguish without reference to Parliament.

In general, if the Government want to do this, the Official Opposition will not stand in their way, I think, but this seems to me to be a very strange thing for the Government to want to do just at the time when they are putting in place a single directing mind covering all rail infrastructure—in effect, handing this over to a statutory structure that will be dominated by a parking code of practice which was issued by a different government department and which is not even available to us at the time when the Department for Transport is relinquishing these powers.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this draft order. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest shown in ensuring that our railway and car parking legislation remains coherent and fit for purpose.

I will first respond to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The consultation was launched a long time ago. Although I cannot account for periods of time before this Government were elected in mid-2024, it is clear that several factors around the cost of the change and how it would affect train operators’ revenue required resolution before this could proceed. As the noble Baroness remarked, these impacts are now funded and budgeted for, and this draft statutory instrument is being aligned, as has also been remarked on, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s private parking code of practice. In answer to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that is to avoid duplicate signage changes and ensure consistency across the parking industry. Although it has taken a long time, it is clearly the right thing to do.

Heathrow Airport: Third Runway

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what information they intend to publish about the proposals they have received for a third runway at Heathrow Airport before announcing any major decisions.

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

My Lords, Heathrow expansion will support UK competitiveness and economic growth. In June, the Secretary of State invited proposals; several were received, and two remain under active consideration. My department will decide on a single scheme by the end of November to inform the Airports National Policy Statement review, which was launched on 20 October. Proposals will not be published by the department, in accordance with the Secretary of State’s letter of 30 June to potential promoters, though some have independently released details of their schemes.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Heathrow expansion is an absolutely enormous project, and there has been remarkably little public engagement. Before deciding between the two remaining bidders, will the Government agree that they should engage in public consultation, particularly on the costs that will flow through to passengers as a result of the regulatory structure, so that they are aware?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The launch of the Airports National Policy Statement review on 22 October is one of the significant steps that the Government are taking to support the expansion of Heathrow. The review has begun before final scheme selection to allow early policy and analytical work. Public consultation will, of course, take place. Round tables with key stakeholders will be held during the review and consultation phases. The further DCO process afterwards will include statutory consultation and public examination.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, given the significant congestion already around Heathrow Airport and the impact on local communities, will the Government be making improved public transport access a condition of any plans for Heathrow expansion, in particular for southern and western rail links?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that, on Monday evening in this House, we discussed the Statement made in another place on Heathrow. She is right—I said so then, and I will say so again—that the public transport links to and from Heathrow must be a critical feature of any proposals put forward by any promoter. There are, as she mentions, schemes for southern and western access. The Elizabeth Line has significantly improved connectivity to the airport since it opened, and we await promoters’ proposals for public transport links to the airport.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, at the same time as considering proposals for Heathrow, would the Minister, using his huge talents, give his full support to the Mayor of Doncaster, Ros Jones, for the reopening of Doncaster Airport, which is vital for regional economic growth in Yorkshire and the Humber?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a point that has been raised here before. The Government have put themselves out, as they should, to support the reopening of Doncaster Airport, and of course we will support the Mayor of Doncaster in the aspiration to have better connectivity for that part of Yorkshire.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the debate over Heathrow expansion, which I strongly support—and I draw attention to my entry in the register about working in the aviation industry, albeit not at Heathrow—is often couched in terms of passenger flights. In terms of the Government’s decision-making, what consideration are they giving to the fact that more than £200 billion-worth of trade goes through Heathrow, including a majority of trade in some very important sectors, such as our world-leading pharmaceutical industry?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

A number of noble Lords are re-running the debate we had on Monday evening. The noble Lord is right that 72% of UK air freight by value goes through Heathrow because it is the only hub airport in Britain, and that is why the Government are so keen to expand it. The noble Lord is right that the value of air freight to international trade to and from Britain is an important issue in considering the expansion of the airport.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, can I just challenge this issue of air freight? High-value air freight takes up very little capacity in the holds of aircraft. In fact, we could double the high value, and scarcely no one would notice. Will the Minister confirm that the majority of air freight by bulk and by weight is fish, followed by books, with medicines coming up third? In fact, the Scottish farming industry would do much better if, instead of hubbing all its fish and Scottish passengers down to London, BA ran direct flights from Edinburgh to New York, the route which is most useful for fish.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I had a feeling that fish and books would come up again because they came up on Monday. Of course, value and size are two different things. The point of an international hub airport—of which I should continue to say we have only one and we will have only one, which is Heathrow—is international connectivity around the globe. Expanding an international hub airport should mean more connectivity to more places, and that will enable more fish and books and salmon to be sent all around the globe.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, as part of the assessment of the two remaining bids for the third runway, will my noble friend take into account the additional carbon footprint of the additional planes, the concrete and steel that go into the construction and any other transport that is needed to service the passengers?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that the carbon footprint of building a third runway and operating the airport is significant. The Government have made it clear that any proposed scheme must meet four clear tests, of which aligning with our legal obligations on climate change, including net zero, is one. He is also aware, I think, that the construction industry is moving forward with more carbon-friendly methods of construction, and I think it reasonable that the Government and the country expect a successful scheme to be carbon friendly, if not carbon-neutral, in construction.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, lest there be any doubt, I was here for the beginning of this Question—I was on the Steps. I am sure my noble friend recalls the plans for expansion at Stansted Airport, which extended over more than a decade, 20-odd years ago. They did not, in the end, come to anything of any significance, but there was a lot of collateral damage in the form of compulsory purchases and other acquisition of land that then had to be fed back into the system, and many people suffered as a consequence. Can he reassure us that, when whatever plan is brought forward for expansion at Heathrow, if it is, it will attempt not to put people in that situation again?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important point. The history of airport expansion in Britain is not particularly happy, and a number of proposals have taken a very long time. Indeed, the previous Government’s ANPS did not go anywhere. This Government are determined to make progress in these areas. My noble friend is right that the long-term uncertainty of failing to progress with plans leaves many people uncomfortable or worse. The Government are determined to make progress and have set themselves targets in getting to the DCO and building this thing so that people can be uncertain for as little time as possible and the certainty is as great as possible thereafter.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Will the Minister say whether it is possible for the Government to buy my ex-wife’s house, which is right near the runway? It is absolutely appalling when you go down there. If the Government are going to make billions and billions of pounds for the UK, then perhaps they should be spending some of that money on improving the lives of people who live under the flight paths, because they are going to be adding an enormous amount of worry and concern to people living down there.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will recognise that it would be unusual for a Minister to commit from the Dispatch Box to buying somebody’s property, but the noble Lord’s more serious point is about noise commitments. Any scheme that comes forward should meet the Government’s four clear tests, of which one is that it is consistent with our noise commitments. I would expect promoters not only to meet the Government’s commitments about noise but look at the effect on properties immediately adjacent to the runway that they propose to build.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I think the place to start here is to say that it is quite clear that having more capacity for an airport that has been at capacity for two decades is a really important step for economic growth and the future of our country. Heathrow is the only international airport hub in Britain: it deserves to function properly and for the economy of the nation.

I shall refer first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, many of which seemed to me to be, on the whole, a criticism of his party’s previous actions in government rather than a critique of what this Government are doing. The fact that the last review took an awfully long time to get to not much of a conclusion is not necessarily a criticism of how this Government intend to proceed. Indeed, we believe that we have a realistic timetable to do so.

The noble Lord assumes that one of the two schemes being taken forward at present, the scheme from Heathrow Airport Ltd, is the one that will be pursued, but that is not an assumption that this Government are making, because we will consider more fully the two remaining schemes to be considered, which differ and clearly have different implications and prices. It is important that they are considered in comparison with each other. Part of that consideration, as the noble Lord notes, is whether they are financeable: what they cost and how they are going to be funded.

It is right that the Civil Aviation Authority looks at the framework for economic regulation. That is, as the noble Lord says, what it does, but it needs to look again in the circumstances in which we are contemplating such a large-scale expansion of the principal—the only—hub airport in Britain.

The noble Lord says that the Government have a lot to do to show that this process is credible. The Government are starting on that process with every intention of showing that it is credible, to do something that previous Governments have not done, with a timescale that is tight but very realistic.

In respect of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that expansion is a mistake, the first thing to say is that is hard to see what else you can do, as this is the only hub airport in Britain. There is no other scheme that will create such a hub airport. Therefore, contemplating a third runway is, we believe, the right thing to do. She asks whether the four new tests will have to be met in their entirety, and the answer is yes, they will. That is quite clear; it has been said from the beginning. We know what the tests are and the aspirants to build the third runway will have to meet them. We will also take the advice of the Climate Change Committee, to which the Secretary of State in the other place is about to write.

The noble Baroness makes the point about noise. One point that was also part of the Secretary of State’s Statement last week was establishing the UK Airspace Design Service in order to look at airspace design for the London region, supporting both Heathrow and the wider network, and also seeking to make flight paths more efficient so that planes spend less time over London, together with slot reform that maximises benefits at Heathrow and the other airports in the south-east of England.

On the noble Baroness’s comments about surface access, I was reading the letters sent to the two successful applicants, and she is right that they refer to construction of roads, but that is not to the exclusion of the rail access points that she refers to. Indeed, it is quite clear that aspirants to build the third runway will have to look at public transport connectivity to the airport. I think that is really important. She mentioned both the southern and western links and the future of the Heathrow Express, and it is quite clear to us that aspirants will have to reference those links and any others that they propose to put forward in order to have an acceptable policy for surface access to the airport.

The Government do not believe that they are misguided. They believe that they are setting out a coherent, speedy but sensible programme to establish the third runway.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of InterTrade UK. I welcome the intent behind this Statement eventually to proceed with the third runway for Heathrow. Connectivity is so important, particularly for those of us who cannot take the train to London and need that connectivity through our hub airport. One of the work programmes for InterTrade UK is to look at UK connectivity to enable trade to work better across the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm that when this process proceeds, regional connectivity and the benefits that come with that, particularly for trade, will be at the forefront of His Majesty’s Government’s mind?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. In a very modest way, I have some background on the connectivity of the United Kingdom. It is of course the Government’s intention that a third runway would enable better connectivity to Heathrow from a variety of places within the United Kingdom. One of the difficulties with running an airport that is at 95% capacity and has been for a very long time is that this rather stifles internal connectivity for external international flights. The Government expect a third runway to facilitate more of that, so that there is more connectivity from various places within the United Kingdom to a lot of places outside it that can be accessed only from a hub airport.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive comments. I have a special interest, as I worked out of Heathrow for 25 years. So I was at the sharp end of delays, and we definitely needed further runway capacity.

It is ironic that Heathrow was built over six runways. Over the decades they built on four with various terminals, and ended up with two. My criticism is for all sides and all Governments, because none were bold enough to look 25 years ago at building a third runway, notwithstanding that Heathrow is the major airport in the United Kingdom. It is not just about London.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made a point about sustainability and the environment. This is a red herring, because so much has been stopped by these environmental arguments. Notwithstanding the aerospace sector, we build the cleanest, greenest aircraft on the planet. Aviation is responsible for 3% of CO₂ worldwide and approximately 4% across Europe, which does not mean to say that we always aim to improve these sorts of things, so that is rather a negative argument.

At present, the two runways are running at 98% capacity, and just a little fog or a delay sends things into a turmoil. So I support the Government’s decision to back the building of a third runway, and what we did before we lost power. It is tragic that these infrastructure projects are delayed. Notwithstanding that, I question the projected amount of money: £40 billion is ludicrous, and I am sure that businesses can come up with a far better figure.

The reason why we do not have a third runway is nothing to do with the Government Benches or the Conservative Party: the reason, and why we have the problems with Heathrow expansion, is because of the Liberal Democrats. The noble Baroness explained perfectly all the reasons why we should not have one; it really is not good enough in 2025.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords—oh, I am sorry.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness could answer.

I am not entirely sure that there was a question in there, but I am old enough to remember flying from the ex-RAF huts on the north side of the airport, so I am sure that Heathrow did have six runways at that stage. If nobody was bold enough to advocate this 25 years ago, it is about time some Government got on with it, and this is the Government who are going to.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand the economic arguments for the expansion of Heathrow, and the connectivity arguments we just heard about. However, I want to address the issue of overflying, which was mentioned earlier.

I was a Member of the other place for a long time, always for an east London constituency. Throughout that time, I dealt with issues of overflying, largely to and from London City Airport but, to a surprising extent, to and from Heathrow. One of the problems was that the technology advanced in such a way that the flight patterns were narrowed. That meant that fewer homes were being overflown, but those that were had a much more intense time of it, and the misery of the noise was compounded.

My noble friend may not be able to answer this question now and may want to write to me, but can he say something about mitigating the noise factors? That might include using advanced aircraft, which we are always assured are going to be cleaner, greener and quieter. Whether or not that happens—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seems to be having an uncontrollable fit of the giggles—perhaps he could talk about that and how the technology might develop to mitigate the problem of overflying.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend; I will have to write to him because I am not a technology expert. All I will say—not in passing because it is a relevant factor—is that aircraft were far noisier 20 years ago than they are now. I realise that that does not mitigate against more of them, but part of this work is undoubtedly figuring out the best way of managing the airspace—for the benefit of landing and taking off, and of the communities underneath the planes. If I have anything useful to say about technology and noise, I will write to my noble friend.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am aware that the Minister is not responsible for the detail of this Statement. None the less, in the first substantive paragraph there is a statement that I suggest requires correction:

“Britain wants to fly”.

A report published in June from the New Economics Foundation states that in the last 20 years, the number of passengers flying in and out of Britain has grown dramatically, from 220 million to 300 million. Of that increase, 63% is the result of UK frequent flyers and 24% the result of foreign residents, many of whom will also be frequent flyers. In the last 20 years, the number of UK residents not flying at all each year has increased. In terms of total flight numbers, ultra-frequent flyers—those taking six or more return flights each year—is less than 3% of the population, yet they make 30% of all the journeys taken by UK residents. Therefore, it is not the case that Britain wants to fly. A very small number of people want to fly very often, and they inflict the air pollution we have heard so much about, the noise pollution, the climate impacts and the associated traffic congestion, on all the people who are not flying.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has the right figures in front of her, but her conclusion is not necessarily correct. The purpose of this is economic growth. Supporting growth in the economy is the number one objective of this Government. In terms of who flies, her statistics suggest to me that there is real business traffic at an international hub airport and that constraining that will be a constraint on the economy of Britain, which is a wholly bad thing. Whether everybody else wants to fly for recreation and leisure purposes is very important, but even more important is that the economy is stimulated by those who need to travel, and that we have a hub airport big enough and flexible enough to cope with their demands.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive chair of an aviation company, albeit one that does not operate from Heathrow. I have a couple of points to make. I strongly support what the Government are trying to do in expanding Heathrow. I was very surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, did not mention any of the technology improvements, including to aircraft, sustainable aviation fuel, hydrogen fuel cells and all the technology that will enable us to fly in a way compatible with our climate obligations. She did not mention any of those things, nor did she mention the Elizabeth line, a fantastic, environmentally friendly solution to get enormous numbers of people to Heathrow. Lots of that progress is going in the right direction.

As we have heard, there are lots of people who absolutely do not want this to succeed and will use every tool so that it does not. My concern, notwithstanding what I have said about the compatibility of expanding Heathrow with our climate change obligations, is that I am convinced that when—as I hope—the Government make the right decision to expand Heathrow, there will be a judicial challenge on climate grounds. I want to know what the Government are doing, first to speed up the process of that challenge, but also to make sure that, ultimately, that challenge will fail and we can make sure that this very important hub airport—not just important for passengers but also incredibly important for the amount of freight that it moves in and out of the United Kingdom—is able to expand and benefit the people of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There have been occasions on which I did not necessarily agree with the noble Lord in all his sentiments, but this time I do. He is right to raise things such as the development of aircraft technology, particularly sustainable aviation fuel, on which I hope he will support us when that Bill is considered in this House. He is right also to raise the Elizabeth line, because it makes a huge difference to connectivity to the airport, and he is right to refer to air freight. Heathrow is a principal hub for air freight, which is part of the economic benefit of having a hub airport.

In respect of the noble Lord’s question about a possible challenge, the Secretary of State in the other place said that we have announced that we are working with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system, including for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects. Indeed, it is the Government’s intention to consider very carefully whether this should be designated a nationally significant infrastructure project, alongside others. We are considering that; the Secretary of State is seeking the views of the Climate Change Committee and we intend to do all that expeditiously, to proceed with this.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, on the freight issue, the noble Lord, Lord Harper, as a former Transport Secretary, will know that the primary freight exported out of Heathrow is fish. That is overwhelmingly the majority of the freight. Number two is books. The notion that there is high-value product going through the system is absolutely untrue. There is no need for additional capacity to provide that delivery. The numbers are official and can be looked up at any time.

The Minister supports the principle that a hub airport should forever expand to support economic prosperity and growth. That is not the history of aviation. There is a place for hub airports, but also for direct flights and the development of regional airports. There are many arguments that mean capacity can be delivered in many other ways, without necessarily continuously expanding a hub. Indeed, the numbers that the Government are using at the moment—I think consultants such as Frontier Economics have also been involved—to justify expansion at Heathrow are laying out not future demand but a highly speculative relationship between increased capacity and increased growth.

I am very concerned that the projections the Government are using are not even adjusted to deal with increased capacity at other London airports, never mind potential capacity at other regional airports around the country, and that we are getting into this vicious cycle of creating unneeded capacity which then leads to much more aggressive marketing to persuade more people to fly. It is almost equivalent to the utilities going out and trying to encourage people to use more energy or water. Capacity in the air is a scarce resource and we should be thinking from a far more environmental perspective. I suggest that the policy the Minister is looking at runs dangerously counter to tackling climate change. As for local environmental impact, especially noise, the policy continues to run counter. Although the industry tells us its planes are quieter, I—living under the flight path—can tell noble Lords that that is not the real lived experience under that flight path.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I hesitate to disagree with the noble Baroness because I have huge respect for her. To begin with, fish and books may or may not be valuable in themselves, though I suggest that they are probably more valuable if people air-freight them. The fact is that 72% of UK air freight by value goes through Heathrow, so if fish and books are the two principal exports through Heathrow, they must be valuable fish and valuable books. I cannot reconcile her claim that they are not valuable simply because they are the two highest categories, but the 72% figure is assured.

Moreover, nobody is suggesting that a hub airport should continuously expand for ever. We are looking here at an airport that has been at more than 95% capacity for the last 40 years. Successive Governments have sought a way of doing it, but it has not been done. It is clearly restraining the economy, and it is clearly right that a Government who seek to expand the economy look at a third runway with a view to doing something that has long been mooted. This is clearly restraining both air capacity and economic growth.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement, and I believe that there is a consensus across the House for a position where Heathrow can achieve its full potential as not only a national and European hub but an international hub. I actually find myself agreeing with the Liberal Democrats to a certain extent that there has to be proper and due regard taken of infrastructure, rail and road, and that the economic footprint of Heathrow is not just Hillingdon, Hounslow, Ealing and Brent but reaches out to the wider south-east in terms of jobs, prosperity and enterprise.

I know the Minister has a lot on his plate, not least with HS2 and finding how to plug the gap between Euston and Old Oak Common, which we have discussed on a number of occasions, but I want to press him on judicial reviews. Cosy chats with the judiciary will not cut the mustard on this massive infrastructure project. The Climate Change Act is pretty draconian in respect of the potential for judicial reviews, and I have to press him on whether he envisages primary legislation in order to assist the prospect of this huge project not being clogged up by endless judicial reviews. He will know that even the Labour Mayor of London has said he is more than willing to use the current legislation to block the expansion of Heathrow Airport.

I will make one final, parochial point. This is a holistic airport policy. I come from the perspective of someone who often uses Stansted. To me, it is a national embarrassment that people from, say, California with lots of money to invest have to fly into Heathrow Airport on the way to Cambridge and are then stuck for two or three hours on the M25 until they can reach their corporate or European headquarters in Cambridge. We need more transcontinental flights to the United States and Canada into Stansted, not just Heathrow. That is a more parochial point, but the substantive point is that the Minister cannot wish for legal certainty—he has to do something about it.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord refers to rail connections, which we have already touched on in this debate, and it is quite clear that the two promoters of the schemes will have to address railway connections to Heathrow and not just from the London direction, good though the Elizabeth line is. He mentioned HS2 in passing; we have cracked Euston to Old Oak Common, at least, because the Government are going to fund the tunnelling machines and they will start fairly soon.

In respect of judicial challenges, but for this dinner break business we are considering the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and my noble friend is sitting next to me ready to resume those discussions. As she points out to me, sotto voce, a great deal of the Bill is, in fact, designed to smooth the process of major infrastructure, and that is the reason that this Government are moving forward with it.

Finally, the ANPS is about Heathrow; it has always been about Heathrow. That is not to say that there are not policies that should be applied to other London airports—Gatwick, Luton, Stansted and so forth—but Heathrow is such a big issue in itself and is, as I keep saying, the only hub airport in Britain. It is right that the ANPS should deal only with Heathrow, because it is a very important matter in itself.

International Maritime Organization: Net-Zero Framework

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mountevans]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the postponement by the International Maritime Organization of a decision on the Net Zero Framework until 2026.

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

I am here again.

The United Kingdom is disappointed that adoption of the IMO net-zero framework has been delayed by a year. This stalls crucial efforts to give the maritime sector regulatory certainty and to respond swiftly to the urgent threat of climate change. We remain committed to working with other IMO states to secure adoption of the framework next year. We hope that the regulations can take effect as soon as possible, potentially in 2029 at the earliest.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Given the urgency for climate action and the industry’s need for certainty, does he agree that it is vital to maintain momentum, despite the IMO delay? Will the Government commit to continuing their input during the intersessional period, helping shape the technical framework, building consensus and ensuring that the competitiveness of the UK’s shipping industry is supported in the final agreement?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The simple answer to the noble Lord is yes. Adopting the IMO net-zero framework is vital for climate action and giving industry the certainty it needs to make net-zero shipping a reality. The UK will, as he suggests, maximise our effort to maintain momentum so that the framework can be adopted next year. We are committed to working with others at the IMO, which we are honoured to host here in London, and industry generally, to progress the necessary intersessional work to shape the framework’s technicalities.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, while I welcome the IMO decision—as other noble Lords have said, it is a shame that it has been delayed—when it actually comes into effect, who is going to police the enforcement of lower emissions from ships on a worldwide basis? It sounds a pretty horrendous task.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The purpose of the IMO, of course, is to have an international way of policing things, because shipping is necessarily carried out at sea, so policing in the sense of communities does not work. The way it works is that IMO resolves as a whole to have binding regulations and that is what is being discussed at the moment. We desperately need to give some certainty to people who invest large sums of money for the long term in this. This Government are determined to drive this forward in order to give that certainty, both for decarbonisation and for a healthy shipping market.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, last week in London, only 49 of the 127 delegates—around one-third—voted for the net-zero framework. Does the Minister agree with me that the IMO would be well advised to focus a little more time during the interregnum on things such as the uninsured dark fleet, on unwinding the insanity whereby the charterer pays the ship owner’s ballast legs and on not penalising the large ships that are significantly more fuel-efficient than the small ones per freight tonne?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I recognise that the noble Lord has extensive experience. However, I think he must agree that the subject under discussion—last week’s decision to defer—is far from the only thing that the International Maritime Organization does. Some of the things he has listed are, of course, very important. I have no doubt that we will press the IMO not only to move forward with the decarbonisation agenda but to deal with the things on his list.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, these really important negotiations were effectively torpedoed by the Trump Administration using quite unpleasant tactics at the last moment. What reassessment are the UK Government making of how we can further our international climate objectives, with those who support us, in the wake of a more hostile American Administration?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

If we are to play the role in the IMO that we should, we have to respect the policy positions of other IMO member states. That means working with people who support our position and trying to persuade those who do not that they are wrong and that they should change. Following last week’s decision, this is precisely what we will continue to do with new vigour.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the decision of the IMO was very disappointing. He will know that UK shipbuilders and designers are at the forefront of options for green shipping. Can he give a commitment from the Government that this will continue, despite this delay?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, who is absolutely right. UK shipbuilders and designers are at the forefront, which is why it is important for this Government to continue to support those efforts. We need this for our economy and for our position on climate change, and what is good for the country ought to be good for the world.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, following up on the telling question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is the use of drones not a possible answer to policing?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am afraid I am not qualified to judge whether or not flying drones over major oceans is going to work in this respect. I will certainly take that suggestion back to my department to see whether or not they can make sense of it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, given the apparently implacable hostility of the United States Administration and the very low number of states that voted for this framework in London last week, are the Government not deluding themselves in thinking that one more heave and we will achieve it next year? As my noble friend Lord Fuller suggested, would it not be better if the IMO, guided by the Government, were to focus on the question of the dark fleet? This is being used to ship sanctioned oil around the world in a way that only benefits dictators. Would it not be sensible to get real about some of these things?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord needs to recognise that a worldwide organisation such as the IMO can do more things than one at the same time. What he says about the dark fleet, and what the noble Lord previously said about it, is right, and the IMO should challenge it and do what it can about it. As the noble Lord has just heard, UK shipbuilders and designers are at the forefront of designing new low-carbon and no-carbon shipping. It would be an awful shame if the Opposition Benches were not to support a good piece of the British economy which has the potential to sell not only in Britain but around the world.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, following up on the noble Earl’s point, the Trump Administration unequivocally rejected the net-zero framework, but it went much further than that. It issued warnings on measures it could take against countries voting for the framework, including blocking vessels from US ports, imposing new regulations and extra visa restrictions and applying commercial penalties on government contracts. What is the Minister’s reaction to this kind of pressure?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My reaction to that sort of pressure is that we are an important member of the IMO. We need to persuade others to support us. Following last Friday’s decision, we will renew our efforts with those who also support us to persuade people who do not agree with us that this is the right thing for international shipping and for low carbon. We have an important place in the world. We need to pursue those arguments at the IMO and outside it in order to make progress.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

We should all recognise that carbon emissions from shipping are a significant contributor to global warming. Is there any possibility, given the difficulty of global agreement, for any sort of regional agreement and regional enforcement on a European scale for vessels that pass through the channel or visit European ports across the North Sea? We are conscious that, if there were regulation of ships passing through the English Channel, the dark fleet would be affected. If ships registered in the Marshall Islands came into European ports and were refused permission to unload, there would be some sort of enforcement. Can the Minister give some attention to the possibility of some regional enforcement mechanism?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will certainly take away the noble Lord’s suggestion of regional action, but it is not the same as a worldwide agreement to change emissions from shipping, and we should not shy away from trying to persuade people of that, not least because the technology used will always be better and cheaper if it is used worldwide than if it is used in only one region of the world.

Drink-Drive Limit

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to lower the drink drive limit.

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

My Lords, this Government take road safety seriously. We are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our roads. We are considering a range of policies under the new road safety strategy, the first for 10 years. This includes the case for changing motoring offences such as drink- driving. I assure the House that, as part of this, we are deeply considering concerns raised by campaigners and bereaved families whom my ministerial colleagues have met.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply, in particular that the Government are considering changing offences such as drink-driving, reflecting concerns raised by bereaved families, such as mine. I lost two family members this way.

A fifth of road deaths—about 250 people a year—are because of drink-driving. That is equivalent to a Boeing 787 crashing every year; if one of those crashed every year, we would take it seriously. Even at 50 milligrams a person is severely impaired, which is why the police and the PCCs—everyone—have called for a reduction to 50 milligrams, which is supported by three-quarters of the public. Can the Minister urge colleagues to take seriously the possibility of saving the equivalent of a plane crash every year on our roads by reducing that level?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend has my deep condolences for her family’s loss; I am sure that is echoed by your Lordships’ House. The Government’s view is that driving under the influence of drink is unacceptable and illegal. We are determined to combat this behaviour and to ensure that all such drivers are caught and punished. We have a combined approach of tough penalties and rigorous enforcement, alongside our highly respected and effective THINK! campaign. This reinforces the social unacceptability of drink-driving, reminding people of the serious consequences it has on themselves and others. We will have more to say.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the Scottish Government did exactly what the noble Baroness proposes, then commissioned research that showed the change made absolutely no difference whatever to the accident rate in Scotland?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Earl is certainly right that the Scottish Government changed the limit. I cannot confirm his analysis of the results. Of course, in determining a new road safety strategy, the Government will not only take evidence but look at what has happened as a consequence of different levels. Whatever he thinks the effect is—and it is a consequence of both penalties and enforcement—the Government will think carefully and act decisively.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, drug-driving, as well as drink-driving, is deadly. What work are the Government carrying out to look at international developments in roadside detection devices to collect evidence on wider drug misuse while driving, such as the inhalation of nitrous oxide?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a strong point. Drug-driving is as lethal as drink-driving. She will know that there has been some recent publicity about that particular method of drug-driving in London. I am confident that the police and enforcement authorities are working their way through that particular episode. The Government are looking carefully at all the methods of enforcement for driving under the influence of a variety of different drugs.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, do the Government recognise that young drivers in particular with any alcohol in their bloodstream at all are at greater risk of other dangerous behaviours, such as not using seatbelts and speeding, and that in their accidents it is very often young people or children who are killed or receive life-changing injuries? Therefore, we should have a message that if you are drinking, you do not have the car keys.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. The primary audience of THINK!, the flagship road safety campaign, is young men aged 17 to 24. The campaign targets priority issues, such as drink-driving and speeding, as well as communicating key policy interventions. There is, of course, a form of restricting novice drivers through the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995. On acquiring their first full licence, a new driver is on probation for two years and subject to a limit of six penalty points.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is perfectly correct that the reduction of the limit in Scotland did not reduce the number of accidents. In fact, at one point the number of accidents was 7% higher after the law was changed than before. However, the same researchers who came to that conclusion suggested that the policy failed because it was not accompanied by sustained, high-visibility enforcement, such as random breath tests. They argued that the law needed that, otherwise it would not deter high-risk offenders who regularly ignore the limit.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention. Of course, enforcement is absolutely necessary. Noble Lords will know that enforcement is a matter for chief police officers, and it is one that they consider very carefully. It is not difficult to agree with my noble friend that rigorous enforcement is entirely needed in these circumstances to effectively police any limit.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I come back to the question of drug-driving, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Nobody expects there to be available a roadside test for drug-driving that is as effective as a breathalyser for alcohol. However, given that figures from the department show that there are now more deaths from drug-driving than from drink-driving, what in particular is the department doing in terms of training or other equipment that would assist the police in roadside enforcement, which has been shown to be the most effective way of deterring this activity?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There are, of course, a variety of drugs, which need to be tested in different ways. The department is very concerned about drug-driving and will look at it again in the revised road safety strategy. The noble Lord is right that detection is more difficult because of the variety of drugs, but the department is looking carefully at it because the enforcement effort has to be consistent over drugs and drink.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, the Road Victims Trust does very important work in supporting those families that are affected by drink-drivers and drug-drivers. It is a charity that relies mostly on public donations. What could the Minister do to encourage police and crime commissioners to support the work of the Road Victims Trust through their grant-making?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. The work of that trust is very well regarded. I will consider further what we might do with police commissioners to help support its activities and write to him.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am told that the programme for drug testing on drivers is in serious disarray, with many people’s samples not being tested. Has the Minister considered using breath as well as blood tests, and can he look at sorting it out? I am told that there are now thousands of tests outstanding, which have not moved towards prosecution.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am not an expert in how you test those things, but I am disturbed to hear something that I had not heard previously: the suggestion that the programme is in disarray. I will find out whether the Government believe that it is in disarray and, if it is, what can and will be done about it, and write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Labour Government were minded to make this change in 1998, in moving from 80 milligrams down to 50 milligrams? We are now the only country in Europe that is still on 80 milligrams; everyone else has gone down to 50 milligrams. The Welsh Government have sought permission to introduce the change. Even if we do not do it for England, can we at least let the Welsh do what they want to do?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The reason why I stated in my Answer that we were deeply considering the concerns raised was because the opportunity of a new road safety strategy gives just the opportunity to consider whether reducing the limit is the right thing to do. That is what we are going to do. In that process, I have heard clearly what many have said today. We will reflect and consider, because this is a really important matter.

Open Access Rail Services

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Snape]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the impact on rail capacity of open access rail services.

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

My Lords, in the right circumstances, open access operations can provide benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers, but they can also increase costs to taxpayers and create additional performance pressures on an already constrained network. Large areas of the network are already operating at full capacity, and additional open access services can exacerbate constraints along the busiest corridors of the network and impact operators’ abilities to operate revenue-generative services that would reduce taxpayer subsidy.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Can he assure me that any further applications for open access trains will not prejudice the existing train paths, particularly on the east and west coast main lines, and particularly train paths reserved for freight trains, if the Government are to meet their target of increasing rail freight by 75% over the next few years? Further, does he believe that the fact that open access trains enjoy a different charging regime from the companies that run the majority of services, including the state-owned companies, leads to a more profitable situation for open access trains, and will he do anything about it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is correct. Both the east coast and west coast main lines are now heavily constrained, and under the current arrangements the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, has recently declined most of the additional applications for train paths simply because there is no room. He is also right to suggest that we need to leave room for increased freight operations. There is a general consensus that more railway freight is good for the economy and the environment, and it would be right to leave paths for freight expansion.

In respect of his question about profitability, it was recently reported that FirstGroup’s open access business achieved a 32% operating profit in the 2024-25 financial year. These profits arise because open access operators do not pay the full cost of accessing the track, and nor do they have to meet public service obligations to operate the services that most people need. This allows them to offer reduced fares and provide journeys only between the most profitable locations. Currently, Lumo is the only open access operator that contributes towards fixed costs via an infrastructure cost charge, which leaves taxpayers to fill the shortfalls. The railways Bill will propose to change the arrangements for access and will consider what needs to be done further in respect of charging.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister just said that the ability to grow open access is constrained by the lack of capacity on the network, yet he says that the Government intend to increase rail freight by 75%. How are both of those true?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am surprised that the noble Lord does not know the answer to that, as one of the many former Secretaries of State for Transport in the Chamber. The answer is that there are protected freight paths on all the main lines that are likely to carry freight, in order that freight operators can respond to short-term demand measures—which they do frequently, changing trains on a daily and weekly basis—and have room for expansion. It is important that they are left to do that. Otherwise, there is no chance of freight expansion and the commercial freight businesses would be damaged.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, under the new world of Great British Railways, will the Government allow existing open access operators to continue their current routes beyond the permissions granted by the ORR, even with a new charging regime?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has a good point. The regulator necessarily needs to give a successful open access application sufficient time to recover the significant costs of rolling stock. Many of these arrangements run for at least 10 years, and it would not be right to curtail those activities. Serious investment has been carried out to allow them. What happens in the future we can debate during the passage of the railways Bill, but for the moment those open access operations that have 10-year or similar periodicity will continue.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I spent 32 years of my career working in the public sector and came to understand that the objective was the needs of the customer, value for the taxpayer, protection of the environment and having regard for society in general. Open access, on the other hand, tends to create conflict, encourages gaming the regulator and inhibits evolutionary change. Will the Minister exercise extreme caution when considering open access bids?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I listened to my noble friend with care and respect because he has significant prior experience in running railways. He is right that we should be careful, because we are dealing with only 1% of the passengers and the rest of the network has 99%. We should be careful to allow people to innovate where innovation is a good thing and where there is space for it. We should not allow innovation where it is not a good thing, costs taxpayers money and cannot be accommodated on a very constrained network.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, a lot of people listening to this might think it quite disedifying and perplexing to hear this hate fest against open access services, which are the most popular with commuters, drive down prices where they exist and give consumers what they are looking for. Under the Government’s proposals, the decision on whether open access will be granted for new or continued services will be transferred from an independent regulator to Great British Railways, which is an interested party as a provider of competing services. Does the attitude expressed by the Minister not show how unfit for that purpose the new Great British Railways will be when it starts with such an antagonistic disposition?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord has drunk his own Kool-Aid on this. I made it quite clear that there are benefits to be provided. He also needs to do a bit of careful research, because there are very few commuters on open access services. Commuting is one of the things that has a high fixed cost and generally does not cover the cost of its operations. Open access is successful for people making long-distance journeys irregularly, and some of the operators are very good at it.

The noble Lord also referred to the future railways Bill. We have already made it quite clear that Great British Railways needs to be the body that decides who implements the timetable. Currently, there is not one. It will have to have some rules for access to the railway, which will be developed from the current rules and will be consulted on. If third parties believe that they have been disadvantaged by GBR not following its own rules, or doing something in the wrong way, our proposal will be that they have the ability to appeal to the independent regulator. I think that is perfectly fair, but I also think it is really important that your Lordships’ House recognises that nobody is currently in charge of the national railway timetable except the Secretary of State and me. Outside North Korea, that is really not a good circumstance to have.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Further to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, can the Minister confirm that train operators offer choice for travellers, jobs for those in the railway industry and direct links to London from stations not served by other operators? Will he condemn the words of Mick Whelan, the general secretary of ASLEF, who described open access operators as “parasites”?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think the railway trade unions are quite capable of speaking for themselves. The noble Lord is right: I did say that open access provides benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers. It does provide jobs, although the House might like to note that Hull Trains has been in dispute with its own drivers since February—a dispute that shows no signs of being resolved and results in a reduced service, for which the operator, which is owned by FirstGroup, has no substitute.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister told us that the west coast main line either is out of capacity or will be very shortly. Why have the Government acquiesced to the previous Administration’s curtailment of the HS2 project?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The curtailment of phase 2a of HS2 was a peremptory decision taken with little thought and, I suggest, no good information. The result is that, as the noble Earl says, the west coast main line is currently full, as decided independently by the regulator, which declined all the applications for open access on it. This Government have to consider very carefully what we now do with the results of that peremptory decision. Cancelling a railway to Manchester in Manchester is a pretty crazy thing to do, but that is what happened. We will be back in due course to say what our proposition is, having thought about it a good deal more carefully than the last Government did.

Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 July be approved.

Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 October

Motion agreed.

Great British Railways: Rolling Stock

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what work is under way to develop a rolling stock strategy for Great British Railways.

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

My Lords, my department is already working on a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, which will be the first for over 30 years, both to give certainty to the manufacturing and assembly market and to pursue modern standards of carbon-friendly traction and passenger comfort and accessibility.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the work that is under way. Establishing the right industry partnerships is essential to developing a more efficient and cost-effective British railway model. Can the Minister update the House on the current status of discussions with EUROFIMA and indicate when British operators might be able to leverage its financial support in the procurement of public service rolling stock?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, EUROFIMA is a long-established, supranational financial institution, established as a joint stock company by an international treaty, the convention, signed by 25 European member states. It is dedicated to financing public passenger railway rolling stock and related infrastructure, as well as the modernisation and renewing of related equipment. As part of developing the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, my department is exploring a range of financing structures to support investment in partnership with private finance. This includes active engagement with EUROFIMA to assess how its financing mechanisms could support future investment in the UK rolling stock market. If, following due diligence, EUROFIMA is considered an appropriate avenue to go down, then we would aim to accede by the end of 2026.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, now that the Government own South Western Railway, they have inherited about 4,000 trains that were manufactured four years ago and have not carried any passengers at all. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House when these trains are likely to enter service?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is accurate: 90 trains were procured; some of them were delivered five years ago. At the time that the South Western Railway operation reverted to public ownership, six out of the 90 were in service; as of today, 23 are now in service. The new management is doing what the old one did not, which is to put the new trains in service and have the old ones taken out of service and scrapped. The rest of them will be introduced as fast as the drivers can be trained, which will take a little time because that had not been done either.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, before the election last year, we published a rolling stock pipeline so that the industry was aware of not just the trains that the Department for Transport wished to procure but the fact that it had Treasury funding, which I hope has been a useful foundation for the work that the Minister is doing on the rolling stock strategy. Given that foundation that was put in place, is he able to add to the Answer he gave the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and indicate to the House a timeframe of when he wishes to publish that rolling stock strategy for the competitive rolling stock industry that we established over the last decade or so?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s recollection of what happened in his term of office might be quite good, but the fact is that the industry does not have much regard for what was published at the end of the term of the previous Government and is actively and interestedly waiting for something which relates to a real future, which is related to the age of the rolling stock and future usage. Currently, there are already three live procurements in the market for rolling stock, which will be referred to in the publication of the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, which I expect to take place next summer.

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, in the north-east we rejoice at the success of the reinstated Northumberland line, linking Ashington to Newcastle, which has seen over 700,000 journeys since the line was reopened last December. However, the route struggles with a lack of carriages, and the company would like to put more trains on. Can I ask the Minister whether the strategy will seek to prioritise regions in our country which have traditionally been underinvested in, so as to fast-forward the economic growth the Government so desire?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

If that is an answer, I will sit and listen to it.

The right reverend Prelate is correct that the new line to Ashington is a success. Northern is resolving to put additional rolling stock on those trains now. It is able to do that at certain times of the day. One of the procurements that I referred to is for 464 vehicles for Northern, which will replace a large and elderly fleet of existing diesel trains over the next several years. That will result in enough rolling stock to satisfactorily serve demand on the Ashington line and, indeed, on other routes.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Can my noble friend the Minister tell me how adversely the rolling stock strategy has been affected by the cancellation of the Crewe and Manchester legs of HS2?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The abrupt cancellation of phase 2a of HS2 necessitates thinking through again the rolling stock strategy for the whole of HS2. It is one of a number of really enormous issues that the new chief executive and new chair of the board of HS2 are grappling with, because it is about time that both the Government and the country knew how much had been done for the money that is currently being spent, how long the project will now take to deliver and how much it will cost, and we do not know any of those things currently.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, my apologies for intervening early—old habits die hard. Currently, as the Minister said, there are three rolling stock procurements under way for Southeastern, TransPennine Express and Northern, but how will the Government ensure that there are no further delays to procuring new train fleets? These are essential to replace thousands of old trains—some over 40 years old and, frankly, they are rapidly approaching the end of their operating life, which could lead to a major crisis.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that there are a lot of old vehicles. The average age of vehicles on the national network is 17 years. There are 12,000 vehicles across 14 operators, and it is essential that we plan for the future, if only because several thousand jobs in the manufacturing plant in Derby and the assembly plants at Newton Aycliffe, Goole and Newport, Monmouthshire, all depend on this—as does, as she is right to say, passenger comfort and reliability for rolling stock that has reached the end of its normal life.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, when the Government nationalised the train operating companies, they said that one of the advantages was that they would no longer be paying fees to the private sector. Have the Government carried out, or do they intend to carry out, an assessment of the value for money to the taxpayer of continuing to finance rolling stock through the use of roscos in the private sector?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government’s policy is to continue to use the private sector to supply rolling stock to the British railway market. That has been quite clear since the manifesto before the election and nothing has changed. I think it is likely that the cost of rolling stock will be better than it has been, simply because the life of the rolling stock has been uncertain, but not sufficiently to diminish the risk taken by those companies, which is why they exist and why they should make a profit.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, did I hear, in the Minister’s opening statement a promise or guarantee that the rolling stock strategy will actually address the issues of decarbonisation and the reduction in fossil-fuel use?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. The reason it is entitled the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy is that, with modern technology—including, mainly, batteries—for the first time we can look at bi and tri-mode vehicles. Of course, that is exactly what we need to do. In fact, very few manufacturers are now making diesel-only trains, because it is recognised that we need to be carbon-neutral in future. The strategy will indeed address the issues that she refers to.

[Lord Hintze (Con)]

My Lords, how does the rolling stock strategy interact with the strategy with regard to the personnel who will be driving those trains, and with regard to their pay and training, and making sure we have adequate people to be able to do it on weekends?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that you certainly need staff to drive the trains, and in many cases, but not all, you need conductors. I do not think the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy deals with that directly, but he is absolutely right that one of the critical things to establish reliability on the railways is sufficient staff to drive the trains—in particular, on Sundays, at least on some routes. One of the things that has been done since this Government got elected, one of the input measures that I seek for both this year and future years in the business plans of operating companies, is an increase in the number of drivers so that there are not cancellations and there are reliable Sunday services.