Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 February be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 23 March. Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

Motion agreed.

Small Boat Deaths: Cranston Inquiry Report

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they intend to take in response to the Cranston Inquiry Report on small boat deaths, published on 5 February.

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

My Lords, this was a sobering report setting out the circumstances that led to the tragic loss of over 30 lives. Our sympathies remain with all those affected. Significant improvements have been made since 2021, including more people and assets, new technologies and strengthened departmental oversight. However, we must learn from the inquiry and do everything we can to prevent anything like it happening again. We are carefully considering the report and plan an interim response by the end of May.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend—he has answered half my question already. The report has highlighted that there are very serious deficiencies in our ability to rescue people at sea and that we compare unfavourably with Italy and Greece, which have more and better-equipped boats. The RNLI and Border Force do a wonderful job in trying to save lives, but they are not well equipped with their boats to do so. I hope the Minister will do all he can to implement as much of the Cranston report as possible as quickly as possible before the summer comes along and more people are liable to drown in the channel.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the first thing to say is that crossings of the English Channel in these circumstances are extraordinarily dangerous. Notwithstanding that, more than 152,000 people have been successfully rescued since November 2021. There are now five dedicated Border Security Command vessels in the channel available for search and rescue tasking; these successfully conduct approximately 93% of the rescues in the channel and are supported by RNLI vessels when required. I pay tribute, as I am sure the House also does, to the RNLI volunteers and indeed all those who contribute to life-saving in the English Channel and elsewhere. The Government recognise the gravity of the matters Sir Ross Cranston has reported on and are determined to take all actions necessary following his report.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this report follows on from a statement made by the UK Government on 4 February at the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. On safety at sea, it says that

“it is essential to promote a common, coherent and effective implementation of the legal framework for search and rescue policies in Europe and to help member States to strengthen their solidarity”.

In respect of England and France, can the Minister tell us how that statement will be put into effect?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that collaborative action with our neighbours is key to making the sea safer in these circumstances. It is clear to me from the actions taken before the report was published and from what has been going on since that relationships with the French in particular, and the Belgians, are being pursued very seriously with a view to making sure that if there are any gaps, they are closed as much as possible.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I was pleased to have commissioned Sir Ross to conduct this inquiry and I place on record my thanks to him for his excellent report, which highlights the danger of channel crossings, the appalling organised crime groups that exploit vulnerable people and the difficulty for any Government in balancing border security and protecting life at sea. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government are going to come forward in May with an interim report. I urge him to look at the fantastic work His Majesty’s Coastguard does with its partners in the RNLI, and at strengthening its resources to make sure that we can protect life at sea while also ensuring that we have secure borders.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I compliment the noble Lord on instituting the report when he was Secretary of State, because losing more than 30 lives at sea is clearly a very serious matter. I have already said that there are now many more resources for Border Force, the coastguard and, when necessary, the RNLI, with a view to making sure that such a thing is never repeated.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, the Cranston report runs to over 400 pages. What is the most important lesson to be learnt from it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I spent most of last weekend reading the report—I do not claim to have read every word—but parts of it are extraordinarily harrowing because they comprise evidence from two survivors. It is clear that, as a consequence, a large number of actions are needed. Fundamentally, there were insufficient resources, and insufficient process was followed in the right way, which contributed to this tragedy.

On the other hand, on the night when this occurred, there was also a large number of rescues, and we should at least be proud that many people contributed to rescuing numbers well into three figures, so not all is wrong. As always, the trick with these things is to be positive about the changes that need to be made and recognise the heroism and bravery of those who go out to sea at night in very difficult conditions, but also to make sure that the backing and numbers are there for them to operate safely and do their jobs properly.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I think we would all agree that the best way to reduce the number of people dying in the English Channel is to reduce the number of unsuitable boats crossing the English Channel. The Government were elected on a pledge to smash the gangs. How is that going, and is the effort going to be helped or hindered by the sudden resignation after only 18 months of the head of UK Border Security Command?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government are taking strong, decisive action to do something about this issue. In particular, we are removing around 60,000 people who had no right to remain, and the historic deal with the French, which means that those who arrive are now being detained and sent back, is considerable evidence that the Government are not slacking on this matter.

We should pay tribute to Martin Hewitt, who established Border Security Command. In his time as commander, he has helped to deliver landmark legislation and put in place leadership and governance. We will make an announcement on his successor in due course.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Four years ago, the Government chose not to act on Alexander Downer’s recommendation to then Home Secretary Patel that responsibility for search and rescue in the channel pass from Border Force and the Home Office to the coastguard and the Department for Transport. The Cranston report now recommends that that recommendation from Downer be acted on. Will the Government act on it? If not, why not?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Cranston report makes a number of recommendations. The actions to be taken my department in order to get the best possible outcome must consider all the recommendations together, so I am not going to mention any one particular action at this moment in time. However, the department is committed to taking serious note of everything Sir Ross said and to answering all the points made by him, both in the interim report and thereafter.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, since 2024, the Government have given the French gendarmerie £500 million plus. Does the Minister feel that the French have done enough to make good use of that money?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am not going to comment on the actions of our near neighbour. There is more collaboration now than there was. The number of boats that arrived last year, in 2025, was half that in 2022. We need to get on with them sufficiently for both sides to deal with this problem together.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, we know that war and conflict is the key driver of the number of refugees and asylum seekers. Given the state of the world, what is my noble friend the Minister’s assessment of the impact of that on the resources that will be needed to ensure safe passage?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am afraid that this particular Minister is ill qualified to work out the effects of international conflict. What I should say in respect of those matters for which the department is responsible is that we have to be ready for all the numbers in order to ensure the safety at sea of all those who go to sea, however they go to sea.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, as is evident on the internet, social media is used to facilitate illegal migration in numerous countries globally, serving as a key tool for people smugglers to advertise their services. What are the Government doing to stop this advertising of illegal migration on social media?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government are committed to taking action in every way they can. Since I do not deal with social media—I have plenty to do with transport—if there is any more to say to the noble Lord on this matter, I shall write to him.

Public Transport: Accessibility

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure public transport is fully accessible.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to improving public transport services so they enable disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. The Bus Services Act 2025 and the Railways Bill both include a comprehensive package of measures to improve the accessibility of public transport. We have also committed to developing an accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local transport authorities, driving improvement towards a barrier-free transport system.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, given that the Government have cancelled a significant number of Access for All schemes which had not been fully funded, will the Minister commit to a replacement long-term programme of accessibility works on the railway to ensure that there is a pipeline of improvements, and to help the supply chain have the confidence to invest in this area?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The oldest railway in the world still needs better accessibility at many stations, between platforms and trains, and in information and customer service. We have committed to more Access for All schemes at stations following the recent spending review and intend to set out clearer criteria for future such schemes, which we would expect to fund in future spending reviews and with third-party contributions. The long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy will embrace easier access on to and within trains. The results of all this will produce a clearer future pipeline for the supply chain.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the work he has done on accessibility; he has real experience and commitment. To that end, does he consider so-called floating bus stops to be inclusive by design and accessible for all? That is but one example; whether it is trains, taxis, buses, streets or stations, there are common issues of exclusion and inaccessibility. Does he agree that, tragically, the truth is that in the UK we do not currently have public transport—we have transport for some of the public, some of the time?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I absolutely respect the noble Lord’s determination in the matter of people with any disability accessing public transport. A lot has been done on the accessibility of the bus service, and the noble Lord knows that during the passage of the Bus Services Act, we agreed to cease those particularly difficult propositions whereby you alighted from a bus or got on to a bus directly from a cycle path, which do not work and clearly are not sustainable. On floating bus stops, the noble Lord knows that we paused them and that we have published a better definition of a floating bus stop, which is still a bus stop. The Government intend to proceed with a balance of interests of both cyclists’ and bus users’ safety, which includes disabled people.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, thousands of new trains and carriages are coming into service on the national, regional and underground networks between 2025 and 2030. The Minister referenced the rolling stock strategy, but how many of these trains will exceed the minimum legislative compliance for accessibility, and how many will have a proper platform-to-train interface? I ask this after recently negotiating what is now known as “the leap” at Norbiton station—which, ironically, is the main transport access to Kingston Hospital.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: there are far too many varieties of train on the national network. While it has been possible to build and operate trains with level access to at least normal height platforms, that has not been and still is not a consistent feature of recent train orders. One of the reasons for a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy is to embed level boarding in all future train orders. However, the noble Baroness also knows that these things last for a very long time and sadly, some of the vehicles that have been bought will last for the next 30 years. It is quite difficult to fix that, but she is right that it does need to be fixed.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the owner of a wheelchair-accessible taxi. What is the Minister’s ambitious timetable to finish the work to make all public transport wheelchair accessible?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I rather thought that the noble Lord would ask me that question, since I only met him at 11.30 am this morning to discuss the same issue. His determination to make taxis fully accessible is admirable. However, since taxis are intrinsically part of a service of both taxi and private hire vehicles, and 87% of the total provision of private hire vehicles is not taxis, the Government are determined to embrace his determination with our own determination to make the whole provision suitable throughout England for wheelchair users and people with all disabilities. We will have more to say on Report of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in this House shortly, when we deal with the amendments the noble Lord has tabled.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, would it not help the standardisation of trains if we ensured that the trains we purchase—whether for the rail network, the Underground or even the light railway systems—are produced in this country by British workers?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. The variation in orders for railway rolling stock has been feast and famine. It resulted in the closure of several manufacturing facilities over the last 30 years, and there is now one manufacturing plant and three assembly plants. One of the determinations we have is that the long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy produces a forward order book which is sufficient to keep those plants and the workers who work in them running for the long-term future.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, accessibility into Macclesfield station is severely curtailed for disabled people. The booking hall has been refurbished, which is most welcome, but it would be helpful if there was a completion date. Can the Minister look into this matter? The travelling public understand that it takes time to do refurbishments, but it would be helpful if they had a completion date as the dates keep changing at Macclesfield.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am sorry—I know quite a lot about the railway system, but I do not know the completion date for the station works at Macclesfield. I will find out for the noble Lord and write to him.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I come back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Borwick. Is the Government’s new position that they would make taxis accessible in the rest of the country outside London, where they are already accessible, but they feel inhibited in doing so because they cannot make private hire vehicles—a completely distinct legal category —accessible at the same time? Is that the Government’s current position? Is that what the Minister said?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I do not think that is what I said, because if I meant to say what the noble Lord said, I would have said it. The point is that the definition of “taxi” is venerable and that taxis, in various forms, have been on our streets for several hundred years. Private vehicle hire, as the noble Lord knows, has been legitimised in London only recently and, in the rest of the country, is quite different from what it was 20 years. We need to make sure that the combined provision of those two types of vehicles, which provide what is nearly but not quite the same level of service, is suitable for the users of those services throughout the various rural and urban areas of England.

The present design of accessible taxi of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, is a beautiful vehicle that is largely used only in London because it is so expensive. We need to make modifications to all taxi and private hire services, as the legislation is woefully out of date, and find a way to make them suitable for all people, both disabled and non-disabled, who seek to use them as means to get around their towns, cities and countryside.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend welcome the reopening of Kings Heath station, which was closed in the Second World War? It is a fully accessible station, and the first trains will go through it on 7 April.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am delighted that my noble friend raised that. It is one of several stations that have been completed in the West Midlands; all are accessible and all will make travel around the West Midlands easier, which will improve economic growth and access to jobs and homes.

Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, these regulations will lower the minimum age at which the Office of Rail and Road, ORR, can issue a train driving licence to a person to drive trains on the mainline railway in Great Britain from 20 to 18. Under the regime, applicants will continue to be required to satisfy the same conditions for driving trains contained in the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010, hereafter called the 2010 regulations. These licence conditions will remain unchanged. They include completion of at least nine years of primary and secondary education or vocational training equivalent to level 3 qualifications, and proof of passing medical, psychological fitness and general professional competence examinations.

By lowering the minimum age from 20 to 18, these regulations will bring Britain into line with several other countries including Germany, the Netherlands and Australia. They will also be consistent with the London Underground, where professional operating roles can begin at 18. These regulations will not change the minimum age to be a train driver in the Channel Tunnel, which will remain at 20, consistent with our international obligations.

I will begin by providing background information on the regulatory framework and the case for lowering the minimum age to be a train driver. The railway network currently depends on approximately 19,000 train drivers. These drivers operate passenger and freight services across the country. The 2010 regulations established the legal conditions required to drive trains on the mainline railway and cover both licences and certificates.

A train driving licence confirms that a driver has been medically and psychologically assessed as fit and has passed a general competence examination in train driving. As long as the driver continues to meet these conditions, the licence remains valid for 10 years. Drivers must also hold an employer-issued certificate showing that they are trained and authorised to drive specific trains on specific routes. A driver must hold both documents.

The 2010 regulations implemented the EU train driving directive, which sets a default minimum licensing age of 20 across the EU. The directive also allowed member states to adopt a lower age of 18 for domestic services, but the United Kingdom did not choose to do this in 2009. Since then, as I have mentioned, several countries have successfully implemented a lower age limit and others are actively considering it, including Japan.

In 2019 the Rail Safety and Standards Board, RSSB, undertook research to look at the case for lowering the minimum age in Britain. It published its findings in February 2024. The RSSB found that 18 and 19 year-olds can drive trains safely and professionally when held to the same training, assessment and supervision standards as older recruits. At the same time, lowering the age limit widens the talent pool, increasing driver numbers and improving representation.

The research found that experience, not age, is the determining factor in whether a new entrant to the profession will enjoy a successful career. This experience is gained through practice and exposure to train driving. Experience is a central feature of train driver training and can be gained through a structured training programme. Training and assessment typically take between 12 and 18 months and involve several months of classroom and simulator learning, alongside 225-plus hours of practical train driving. This is followed by mandatory examinations and post-qualification monitoring and assessments.

Support for the policy was reaffirmed in a May 2023 post-implementation review, prompting the previous Conservative Government to consult on the proposal. The consultation, published in May 2025, showed broad support from major industry bodies, including ASLEF—the train drivers’ union—and train operators, although some stakeholders sought assurances about transition arrangements.

For this reason, on 7 May 2025 my department confirmed that we would move forward with lowering the minimum train driver age, subject to receiving an industry implementation plan that would then determine the timetable for changing the law. The Rail Delivery Group, working through the Train Drivers Academy, co-ordinated the industry’s response, gathering industry specialists to review existing arrangements and identify opportunities to optimise the system. The industry confirmed that existing safeguards, testing and supervision remain appropriate for younger entrants, but recommended that operators update their procedures and ensure staff understand how best to support new trainees. Overall, the implementation plan demonstrated that a lower minimum age for train driving can be introduced safely and without requiring major changes to core safety or competence management systems.

The department and the ORR approved the implementation plan in December and published it on GOV.UK on 19 March. The plan proposed several practical improvements that industry will now implement to strengthen recruitment, assessment and training for all new drivers, not just younger applicants. These include fairer and more transparent recruitment processes, clearer information about the role, better support for managers working with younger colleagues, more consistent industry-wide communication, and development of a simple and accessible recruitment portal. To help monitor arrangements, a study is proposed to monitor the progress of younger drivers over time, which will use a small group of pathfinder operators to test, refine and share effective approaches.

Taken together, the industry has produced a clear and evidence-based strategy that will help bring younger entrants into the profession safely and confidently. We are confident that these arrangements will be in place by June this year, which is why we have scheduled the legislative change to take effect on 30 June. From that date, young people will be eligible for train driving positions.

I turn to the reasons why the Government are bringing forward these regulations and their intended objectives. The rail industry is facing significant skills shortages across several key areas, particularly train driving. Around 25% of the current workforce is expected to reach retirement age by 2030. We project that there will be a deficit of 2,500 train drivers by the end of the decade unless action is taken.

In some parts of the country, such as Wales, that figure is closer to 38%. Even in London, where the proportion is lowest, nearly a quarter of drivers will retire within the same period. Without a concerted effort, this presents a retirement cliff edge that risks the industry’s ability to maintain current service levels. Operators are already experiencing difficulties in recruiting new drivers and are too frequently reliant on overtime to sustain timetables.

At the same time, there is clear evidence that the rail industry is not yet drawing on the full breadth of talent available. The workforce remains relatively homogenous: the average train driver is 47 years old, fewer than 11% of them are women and fewer than 13% come from minority-ethnic backgrounds. This points to significant untapped potential across the country.

Lowering the minimum age of train drivers will not on its own solve driver shortages, and it is still the responsibility of operators to take steps to secure the workforce they need. This change is, however, an important first step and will help the industry to build a more resilient pipeline of drivers by creating a clearer route for school leavers to enter the profession. This is because the current minimum age of 20 has for many years acted as an arbitrary barrier to entry. By that age, many young people have already committed to other employment, vocations or further study. Lowering the minimum age to 18 will allow operators to engage school leavers and offer a clear, structured route into a highly skilled and respected profession. In doing so, it will help the industry respond to the demographic and operational pressures it will face in the coming years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly his succinct response to the issues raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is good to have those comments on the record. It also saves me the trouble of asking all the questions that it asked and pressing him to give answers in his wrap-up. That has considerably shortened the remarks I entered the Room with.

On my part and on behalf of the Conservative Party, we wholly welcome this statutory instrument and the development it contains. It was, in fact, a Conservative initiative, as the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks. It is always good to have new measures that help youth employment at a time when youth unemployment is rising so dramatically under the current Government.

However, while I welcome the regulations wholeheartedly and without reservation, and while I think they are a very good thing in principle, I have slight doubts about whether they are going to make an enormous difference in practice. First, as the Government say, there is already a strong demand for train driver roles. Lots of people want to be train drivers, yet the fact is that the workforce is very restrictive. The Minister mentioned the retirement profile that is approaching, and I do not need to repeat that, but as far as I am aware, the average age is 47. Less than 3% are under 30, and women make up less than 11%. I wonder what has brought that about. It is not the restriction from the age of 20 that is causing that, and moving it to 18 is unlikely to change it, especially given that these are well-paid roles for which there is a great deal of demand.

What is in the process of happening as a result of the Government’s policies is that the Government are becoming the employer. The Government might say that Great British Rail is becoming the employer, but that does not exist and will not exists for several years at the rate things are going. The Government themselves—the Department for Transport, through its subsidiary companies—are the employer. So trying to understand, trying to tackle the root explanations for this strange profile in the workforce with a view to opening up the demographic of our train drivers, is a responsibility that falls squarely on the Government. I have not heard the Minister say what, as an employer, the Government are going to do about that.

I welcome that he has explained, I think quite convincingly, what he is going to do to make it easier for 16 to 18 year-olds to get on track in this direction, but what are they going to do about the existing profile of the workforce? How are they going to get people of other ages, who might be in their mid-20s or who might have done some other role, to enter the workforce at that stage—urgently—and get involved, given the cliff edge that we are promoting?

There are serious issues. We know that the workforce has tended to be restrictive about how one can enter it, and that its general profile is not reflective of the population at large. While I am not encouraging diversity for the sake of diversity, some of the problems we have are because the pool has been very narrow and widening it from 20 to 18 is not the key issue that will resolve it.

The Government’s impact assessment states that they have looked at other countries, including France, Germany and the Netherlands. If the Government are looking to other countries, they might also look to other working practices that need changing. One example is Sunday working, which in many countries is built into the contracts of train drivers. That is not so here, and we are dependent on voluntary overtime for Sunday running of the trains. It would be useful to know what the Government are thinking of doing about this as part of their general workforce programme, now that they are the employer.

On the question of age, I come back to the issue of Transport for London. The Government said that the age limit of 18 already applied at Transport for London, which is true, yet, as far as I can see, there are very few young drivers at Transport for London. We have the problem that, according to a freedom of information request, Transport for London does not currently employ a single train operator under the age of 23, and that person is a bit of an outlier anyway. Similar problems exist at Transport for London regarding retirement cliff edges, even though they operate this lower age limit for entry.

The general verdict is that we are in favour of the lower age limit and we recognise the problem, but we do not think this is enough. The Government will have to go a great deal further to solve the problems that the Minister set out in his opening remarks.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their attention and for their comments about this instrument.

In response to the noble Baroness’s questions, I reassure her that I and my officials are working closely with all the people involved to ensure that we can capture the interests of young people and promote awareness of the opportunities. I think it will be easier with 18 year-olds than it is with 20 year-olds because of the measures that I talked about, including apprenticeships and the prior preparation for these jobs. We know that it will be easier, and we intend to do a great deal to make sure that, across the industry, we engage young people and showcase what a career in train driving can offer.

The industry is more co-ordinated than it was. For example, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the train circulating to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the national railway system. It has a carriage devoted to interesting young people in railway careers, which has been enthusiastically welcomed wherever it has been. On a more long-term basis, operators will work closely with schools and colleges to deliver talks by other young train drivers, share experience and support activities that will inspire young people to consider this as a career. We know that we need to do more across communities, and the opportunity of engaging younger people will be a stimulus to achieve that.

The noble Baroness referred to the consultation in which there were objections from existing drivers to this proposal, but we do not believe it is correct to say that the majority of drivers opposed it. I have met a number who are very keen on it, including some people of a relatively venerable age. We think that the objections are individual and not representative of the wider industry view. Certainly ASLEF, the largest train-driving union, which represents 95% of drivers on the network, strongly supports the measure. For any who have expressed concerns, I believe they are mostly about somehow compromising the rigorous high standards that existing drivers must meet. I hope I have reassured the Committee that that will not be the case, that standards will continue to be as high as they are now and the full competitive selection process will still be followed. In any event, we will monitor how the new arrangements are working in practice as part of the longitudinal study.

Finally, the noble Baroness asked what additional measures the Government are actively considering. Aside from what I have already said about updating and widening access to existing rail apprenticeships, the Government recently invested £1 billion into the national youth employment initiative, which will help to create 200,000 new jobs and apprenticeships. Those measures will strengthen generally high quality apprenticeships, while the rail industry having the new apprenticeships that I talked about will encourage young people into this industry.

There are already key initiatives across the railway industry, including women in rail, the National Skills Academy for Rail’s routes into rail campaign, Network Rail’s inspire and STEM programmes and the young rail professionals network. We will make sure that they all embrace 18 year-olds in the future so that we get a more diverse pipeline of talent into the sector. My department will also look at potential reforms to the legislative framework for train driving to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and continues to equip train drivers with the training they need in this evolving industry. Of course, Great British Railways will make it easier to work with the industry to develop proposals for consultation over the next years.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his general support for this measure and concur with him that it was initiated by the previous Government. He asks what else we will do. One of the answers is that there is a much more vigorous recruitment programme than under the previous Government. Severe shortages have developed since Covid. The Government are working extremely hard to make up the deficiency in vacancies and work out properly what the establishment of the railway is. Several operators clearly lost sight of that in the previous regime. We will raise the railway’s profile with schools and use the precedent of the bus industry, which similarly reduced the age some time ago and has found a good source of younger people.

The noble Lord referred to Sundays not being part of the working week. That is a real problem, and the industry has not been consistent on it. Some employers have Sundays within the working week. The Secretary of State in the other place has said a number of times that it is time that the railway employed people for seven days a week, since that is how it works. That will encourage employment characteristics that are more like the rest of the railway and, we hope, encourage people into the industry as well.

Lastly, the noble Lord raised the Underground’s lower limit and its apparent absence of young people as a consequence. My own surmise is that—I will write to him if this differs—recruitment to fill the night Tube, which he will recall, has distorted the age profile simply because there was a large recruitment of drivers for it. Subsequently, employment conditions changed again, and those people are now part of the normal workforce, so that distorted the age profile.

I hope that I have satisfactorily answered all the questions from noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. All that remains for me is to beg the Committee to consider the statutory instrument.

Motion agreed.

Rail Infrastructure Resilience: Storms and Floods

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the resilience of rail infrastructure against future storms and floods.

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

My Lords, my department’s climate adaptation strategy for transport embraces detailed work on the railway infrastructure by Network Rail. That organisation has produced weather resilience and climate change adaptation plans by railway region, looking out not only over the five-year control period to 2029 but further into the 2030s. Those plans identify priority sites for maintenance, renewal and enhancement. Beyond 2029, work programmes will be firmed up and funded in future control periods.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that Answer and to know how much work Network Rail is doing to mitigate the effect of global warming. But when we look at the south-west, we see most of it cut off for several days—weeks, occasionally—not just by high tides, which are going to get higher, but by river floods. We may get a situation where the whole railway between, say, Newton Abbot and Exeter is closed and not repairable, so is it not time to start a formal study into the viability of inland routes and how they could be developed? That would give people who live in the south-west some comfort that the long-term resilience of the whole rail network down there is being looked at and preserved.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

As an engineer, my noble friend will know that Brunel built the railway around the south Devon coast in 1846 and that it has been under attack by the tides and weather ever since. The most serious closure was of nearly 60 days in 2014, and that was remedied by a large-scale investment project that spent £165 million. That resulted in a railway that was sufficiently resilient to remain closed for only 36 hours earlier this year, despite terrible weather.

The citizens of Devon and Cornwall can be quite comfortable that the future resilience of the railway is being looked after. The alternative route, which stopped operation some 60 years ago, in fact closed temporarily for a much longer period due to the heaviest rainfall ever recorded in the south-west. It would not be a sufficiently resilient route, even if it could be afforded to be rebuilt.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, first, I wish the Minister a happy birthday. As we have been discussing, extreme weather is our new reality, leading to the Tarka line, which links Barnstaple to Exeter in the south-west, already being closed for 24 days this year as a result of the recent storms. Will the Government commit to increased investment to help our railways adapt to the new climate and to keep passengers moving, whatever the weather?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her good wishes. There have been quite a lot of birthdays in my life so far. The Tarka line is part of what was the Southern route around the northern edge of Dartmoor. The highest rainfall ever in the south-west of England closed the line for a long period of time simply because the bridges had to be inspected to make sure that they were safe for traffic. There was a terrible accident some 40 years ago in Wales, when a bridge collapsed due to erosion after a storm. I can reassure the noble Baroness that Network Rail is looking at some advanced sensor technology in order not to have to wait for rivers to subside sufficiently for divers to inspect the foundations of bridges. That is a fairly modest expenditure, and I think it will help the resilience of the lines to Barnstaple and Okehampton.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, what progress is being made on doing some of this resilience work outside just bank holidays and weekends? A programme was set in place by the previous chairman of Network Rail to ensure that this work is done at other times of the year. Is that still being undertaken, and what progress has been made on that front?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think the previous chairman of Network Rail recalls one of the previous Secretaries of State telling him to do something like that—and, as an obedient public servant, that chairman went off and did it. The lines north of Exeter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred are, rather unfortunately, closing for two weeks in just a few days’ time. They are being closed in the winter season, when use is less, although it will still be inconvenient, precisely because it is cheaper and much more efficient—and the work gets done better—to do large-scale track renewal and maintenance of drainage and other structures. That cannot be done everywhere but, where it can be done, the noble Lord is absolutely right that the railways should do more of it. The co-ordination that will come from Great British Railways will enable more of that sort of work to be done.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, Network Rail—being, of course, a state entity—does not buy third-party insurance from anywhere, but the insurance industry has an amazing number of modellers and information about the natural perils in the United Kingdom, particularly the sweet-water peril and the salt water peril that we are discussing. Can the Minister tell us whether the insurance industry is being tapped for its expertise in trying to manage and predict these perils?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Earl asks a very pertinent question, and I will write to him. I believe that is true, but I cannot say for certain. Following the Carmont disaster, when people were killed as a result of an earthworks failure, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, wrote a very powerful report on earthworks maintenance for Network Rail, and Dame Julia Slingo did similarly on the weather. During my tenure at Network Rail, it started by buying the cheapest weather forecast it could. Dame Julia has pointed out that you can now forecast the weather in two-kilometre squares throughout the country; that is what Network Rail now does, and it helps prevention. I take what the noble Earl says very seriously and will write to him to make sure that the knowledge in the insurance industry is used.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has a very reassuring attitude towards travel, particularly in the south-west, but I think it will be many more birthdays before he resolves issues such as Dawlish Warren and the current closures we have in south Devon. Does he understand that users of the Tarka line, of which I am one, are not just people like me? There are a lot of students travelling from places in the north of Devon, such as Barnstaple, and all the villages and communities in between, trying to get to places such as Exeter College for sixth form on a very regular basis. Very often, the buses that are put in place do not necessarily tie up, and it is extremely difficult for them, particularly when they are facing things such as exams.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise that. The prolonged closure after the recent flooding has meant that Network Rail’s attention has been very sharply drawn to the need for both the structures and the earthworks to be more resilient, and for the inspection process for bridges, which I referred to earlier, to be done in a more expeditious way. I entirely recognise that many communities in north Devon rely solely on that railway, and that it must perform better in the future.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, in light of the repeated flooding of key routes operated by East Midlands Railway in the area that I serve, particularly the Erewash flood plain near Ilkeston, as well as the Trent Valley, what assessment have the Government made of the cost effect on businesses from loss of trade and overall productivity, and the wider social costs that arise, when railways are not functioning properly due to persistent flooding?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is completely right that the real costs of an interruption to the train service are suffered by individuals and businesses. This Question has so far concentrated largely on the south-west, but the right reverend Prelate reminds us that this is prevalent throughout the country. The adaptation plans that I referred to in my original Answer cover the whole of Great Britain, including the railway in Scotland and Wales. They are designed to reduce, as far as possible, the risks posed by flooding and other weather events to the whole railway on a continuing basis, precisely because of the effects of an interrupted service, as the right reverend Prelate says.

Cyclists: Safety

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of which safety measures for cyclists are the most (1) effective, and (2) cost-effective, for reducing (a) accidents, and (b) injuries.

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

My Lords, well-designed infrastructure, particularly of the kind that provides protection from motor traffic, can improve both safety and perceptions of safety for cyclists. In addition to our £626 million investment in active travel infrastructure that we announced last year, we have now also published our road safety strategy. This sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads, including cyclists, by 65% by 2035.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. The Government have said that they want cycling to be a safe, healthy, green and accessible option for everyone. However, 4,000 cyclists were killed or seriously injured on our roads in 2024. Cycling is nearly 10 times as dangerous as driving. Potholes and poor road surfaces are a major hazard, and a recent survey suggests that 88% of cyclists find these a danger and that 22% have been injured as a result. I cycle daily in Oxford, and the potholes are getting worse, not better. The extra funds allocated are not sufficient. Industry experts tell me that there are better ways of repairing potholes than slapping down a patch of cold asphalt that comes out after a few weeks. Are the Government encouraging councils to use the latest and best technology for repairing our roads?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My department supports innovation in the local highways sector by creating conditions that enable the safe, evidence-led adoption of new products and approaches, while leaving decisions on individual technologies to local highway authorities. This includes providing record long-term funding for highways maintenance, with a proportion of funding linked to the demonstration of best practice, including the adoption of innovative techniques. The Government require each local authority to publish annual transparency reports to help local people understand what action is being taken to improve their roads. Oxfordshire County Council is no exception: its recent report highlights that it works closely with its supply chain to trial new materials in highways maintenance, including graphene asphalt, which it claims has been successfully used to enhance the durability of road surfaces.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I am a regular cyclist. I suggest that the wearing of helmets and high-vis jackets and, in urban areas, the provision of cycle-only tracks is the most effective way of reducing injuries.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Viscount is certainly right that the segregation of cyclists, where it can occur, is a good thing. The Government recommend the use of helmets and high-visibility clothing. He is absolutely right to emphasise those things, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was asking particularly about road surfacing, which is important. The Government take it as important to improve the surfaces of roads for both cycling and driving.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, countries such as the Netherlands continue to lead the way in quality transport infrastructure. Around 72% of secondary school children walk or cycle to school there, whereas in the UK that figure is only 38%. What will the Government do to make it easier and safer for children to walk and cycle to school?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The £626 million investment over four years in active travel infrastructure is designed to do precisely that. The noble Baroness is completely right; we want people to walk and cycle, and we want kids to do that as a matter of habit. That is why the Government are investing so much money. Before Christmas, we consulted on the third cycling and walking strategy. I anticipate that that too will have something to say in the direction that she wants us to go in.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister please tell us what action the Government are going to take to make cyclists more aware of their responsibilities towards pedestrians? All too often, cyclists show a complete disregard for the Highway Code and the safety of pedestrians.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The behaviour of cyclists is a concern to pedestrians, vulnerable people and, indeed, motorists. The road safety strategy covers the full range of road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. It is important that everybody using our roads behaves in accordance with the Highway Code and the law but, as my noble friend will know, the enforcement of laws in relation to traffic, cycling and motoring is the business of chief police officers.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, the safety of cyclists is critical, as is the safety of all road users. To that end, will the Minister consider reviewing the recently published guidance on so-called floating bus stops, which does not deliver safety for cyclists, pedestrians or, indeed, anyone? It fails on being inclusive by design, on safety and on inclusion for all members of society. To put it another way, as a blind person put it to me: “How can I get a job when, as a consequence of these discriminatory changes, I can’t even get a bus?”

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have great respect for the noble Lord’s views on this. He will know that, as the debate on the then Bus Services Bill went on, my ministerial colleague took decisive action to stop one particular design and review the standards. That is what we have to do, because there is not unlimited space on roads and pavements. We have to find a safe way for people to board buses, for disabled people to be able to navigate pavements, and for cyclists to cycle. We are doing our best at that. The noble Lord will know that we have put a lot of effort into floating bus stops, and that has not finished yet.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, does the Minister have any idea how to combat the negative view of cyclists from so many people here in your Lordships’ Chamber? Could we have some sort of educational programme to help them understand?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Self-education is not a bad thing sometimes. I know that the Mayor of London is making strong attempts to improve the behaviour of cyclists. It is a concern that people feel able to cycle through red lights and across zebra crossings when people are on them. It is dangerous not only for pedestrians, disabled people and other road users but for cyclists themselves. I am very pleased to see that the Mayor of London is running that campaign and I hope that other local highway authorities do so as well.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that some real problems can be caused by Lime bikes and rental bikes? If a cyclist causes an accident or injury and the person using the bike is underage or the bike is stolen, there is no insurance cover and the companies refuse to take responsibility for the accident. Will the Minister look at what can be done to rectify this matter? It has caused some real problems, particularly here in the capital, and these companies need to take responsibility.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There certainly is an issue with illegal or underage use of hire bikes. I take what my noble friend says with great seriousness. We are considering what else to do about this matter.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, coming back to the perennial topic of floating bus stops, when we debated the Bus Services Bill, the Government gave an undertaking through an amendment that they would review the design of those bus stops. That new design has now been published. Is the Minister not the slightest bit embarrassed that the new design looks almost exactly the same as the old one?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

No. The reason for that is that a bus stop looks like a bus stop, as the noble Lord will know, and it is pretty hard to make it not look like a bus stop. The serious point at issue is that some detailed design features need to be carefully considered. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, says with great seriousness because he makes the point passionately and from experience. I believe that the department has done better and I think it will evolve. I also believe that we have done what we said we would do. I am not in the least bit embarrassed about improving something a bit because that is all you are likely to do at one time.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Bill do now pass.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the scrutiny, due diligence and expertise of noble Lords during the debates on this legislation. This Bill is a huge step forward. By unlocking the potential of sustainable aviation fuel production in the UK, we can significantly reduce aviation’s greenhouse gas emissions, grow the economy and support green jobs. Your Lordships’ input as this Bill has progressed through this House has meant that it leaves this place in better shape.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whose engagement and scrutiny of this legislation has been welcome, particularly on HEFA. I am sorry about the acronyms—this Bill is particularly full of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have been exemplary in their engagement on the Bill. I thank them for their continued scrutiny, and in particular for making sure that transparency is at the forefront of the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, whose amendment to the Energy Act paved the way for the first consultation on a revenue certainty mechanism for SAF. His expertise on this subject has been invaluable.

The Bill will now ensure the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only where the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the UK, which was always the Government’s intention. In addition, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for the expertise and clarity he has brought to our discussions on power to liquid and feedstocks more generally. Finally, I extend my personal thanks to all the officials who have supported me, including the Bill team, legal colleagues, the drafting team in Parliamentary Counsel and others who have been involved in its successful passage.

I look forward to seeing this Bill pass. If we are to create the jobs and attract the business investment Britain needs, we must grow aviation and grow it sustainably. This Bill does just that. I beg to move.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, before I say a few words, I would like to declare my interest, as listed in the register, as non-executive chair of RVL Aviation. I thank the Minister and the Government for continuing the sustainable aviation fuel regime that we set out, the revenue certainty mechanism and the investment in UK industrial production of sustainable aviation fuel. I thank him for listening carefully to the points made by colleagues in Committee, and for bringing forward appropriate amendments on Report. Finally, I thank him for responding to a number of points I made by committing to keeping the House informed as government policy develops in this area. I am very pleased to support the Bill as it makes its way on to the statute book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, despite the applause from all sides of the Chamber for this Bill, I am afraid it remains a very troubling piece of legislation. It has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, effectively as a piece of net-zero legislation, but, as I have insisted throughout its passage, this is not net- zero legislation. The net-zero effect in relation to sustainable aviation fuel was achieved by the SAF mandate put in place 15 or 16 months ago, which requires airlines to mix in an increasing amount of HEFA, and, increasingly, other fuels, over time. That is what will make the contribution to net zero.

This Bill is in fact a piece of industrial policy. It is based on the premise that somehow, because we will consume SAF, we need to be a world leader in producing it. Despite my pressing the Government repeatedly, the Minister has not been able to offer any reasons for thinking that we have a comparative advantage in this field and that we should dedicate resources to it. The Bill’s means of doing this is by piling subsidy upon subsidy. It really is, as I say, very troubling.

Through this Bill, we are now guaranteeing a floor price for SAF producers, and the risk is being transferred away from them. That risk is being transferred down the chain to airlines and their passengers. We on our side sought a commitment from the Government to be transparent about the likely impact on fares. Instead, they, along with the Liberal Democrats, chose to shield the travelling public from the dangerous knowledge of what they will actually pay for this policy over the years ahead. Much of what matters to make this Bill work is in fact saved for secondary legislation and indeed for commercially confidential negotiations between officials on the one hand and the shark-toothed lawyers of the international investor sector on the other. It is a recipe for success—I am sure the Minister would want to say that.

Despite all that, I cannot fail to thank the Minister for his now reliable courtesy and helpfulness in the passage of this legislation, in working with the official Opposition and other noble Lords, and in his responsiveness. I also thank his officials, who have been very helpful and have responded rapidly and efficiently when we have had questions for them. I am grateful to all those people for doing that.

I pay particular tribute to my noble friends Lord Harper and Lord Grayling for their contribution in the debate, but also to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, with whom I worked on certain amendments. We have achieved some improvements to the Bill as it has passed through your Lordships’ House. None the less, the best solution for this Bill would be that it is never called upon or used, and that we procure sustainable aviation fuel for use in our airline industry from the cheapest and most efficient source, whether that be produced here in Britain or elsewhere.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords and I commend the Bill to the House.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after “of” insert “UK-produced”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments to clause 1 provide that a revenue certainty contract can only relate to UK produced aviation fuel (as defined).

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their extensive engagement between Committee and Report. Amendments 1, 2 and 4 in my name will ensure that the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only where the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the United Kingdom. This will provide the industry with a clear signal of support. I hope that this measure reassures noble Lords that I have considered the contents of the amendments tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. I thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement in reaching this position. I urge noble Lords to support the inclusion of these amendments in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the House that I was unable to be here in Committee because of a family crisis. I am very glad to be here today and to welcome these amendments. I have no intention of moving my own amendment since the Minister has addressed my concerns. The important thing was to ensure that nobody could game the system: that we knew that we were supporting UK manufacturing and not somebody playing a fast one on us by shipping mostly complete fuel to our country, polishing it up a bit and claiming it was British. The Minister has done that with these amendments and I very much welcome them. I am grateful to him and I support them.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I wish only to congratulate my noble friend Lord Grayling on his amendment and, further, on having persuaded the Government to table alternative amendments that have the same effect as his. We have no objection to those amendments.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for Amendment 5, which we debated in Committee, and for his contribution. I am very grateful to hear from all noble Lords that the amendments that the Government have tabled deal with the issue that was raised in Committee.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after “of” insert “UK-produced”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, so the House might believe that I am immediately against all this sort of thing, but that would not actually be true. I am certainly in favour of proper CO₂ accounting, hence my support for Amendments 14 and 15.

We cannot do another Drax, dare I say, where we end up with a situation that sounds very renewable and sustainable, but when we peel the surface away, we are actually generating more CO₂ in creating the final outcome than by doing nothing. My concern if we allow crops, particularly if they are imported sustainable fuels that are derived from crops, is we do not have the CO₂ accounting arising in the UK, and we pat ourselves on the back and say how marvellous and virtuous we are, but the reality is that we have increased global CO₂ on an undertaking that is anything but sustainable.

I would like an assurance from the Minister that, as we progress the sustainable aviation fuel future, there is proper mindfulness about the CO₂ effects of what we are doing. One of my grave concerns about the power-to-fuel ambitions is that they require such a huge amount of energy in the creation of the fuel that, by the end of the process, we will have actually created a lot more CO₂. I hope that we have learned something about CO₂ accounting, particularly on the back of the Drax experience, which allows virgin forests from North America to be cut down, presumably powered by petrol. It then goes to drying mills run by gas, is put on a diesel-powered train to a shipping port, comes across the Atlantic by a diesel-powered ship and is then burnt in a power station in the UK, and, hey presto, we say that it is zero-carbon. We have to do better than that as we progress a net-zero future. I do not want to see us conned and just kidding ourselves and the public that we are doing something for the right reasons when actually we are creating more CO₂. I would like that type of assurance from the Minister.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to prevent the revenue certainty mechanism supporting power-to-liquid sustainable aviation fuel projects. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted, Amendment 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, produces the reverse, in that it would require the Secretary of State to enter into at least one revenue certainty contract with a SAF producer that is using power-to-liquid technology.

We believe that there is value in potentially supporting power-to-liquid fuels because they have a high greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential, lower competition for their feedstocks and lower risk of wider environmental issues such as land use change. Adopting either of these amendments would limit the Government’s negotiation flexibility by setting criteria in advance, which could ultimately reduce overall value for money in the contracts agreed.

The Government will establish a fair and transparent contract allocation process to assess each project’s costs, benefits and risks. It is important that government retains the flexibility to support a range of technologies if they can deliver cost-effective greenhouse emissions reductions and support the SAF mandate obligations—and, to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whenever they are able to do so. He cannot predict the future any more than I can, and in any event, there is a sunset clause to the Bill which means that it can be extended in five-yearly increments. We are currently developing our approach to allocation, and we will publish an allocation strategy which outlines our approach to different SAF technologies and how the revenue certainty mechanism will support mandate targets.

On Amendments 14, 15 and 16, our intention is for HEFA technology and feedstocks to be excluded from RCM contracts because HEFA SAF—I am sorry about all these acronyms—has already overcome many of the barriers to investment that the revenue certainty mechanism seeks to address. However, the SAF market is at an early stage and uncertain, so the legislation needs to remain flexible to allow for potential future changes in the market to which the revenue certainty mechanism may need to respond.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Could the noble Lord kindly repeat the beginning of that statement where he talked about the Government’s intentions on HEFA? It is important that the House hears exactly what the Minister is saying about that.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Of course; I am very happy to repeat it.

Our intention is for HEFA technology and feedstocks to be excluded from RCM contracts because HEFA SAF has already overcome many of the barriers to investment that the revenue certainty mechanism seeks to address. However, the SAF market is at an early stage and uncertain, so the legislation needs to remain flexible to allow for potential future changes in the market to which the revenue certainty mechanism may need to respond.

I hear noble Lords’ concerns on growing crops for purposes other than food; the sustainability criteria in the revenue certainty mechanism will align with the sustainability criteria in the SAF mandate. This will be implemented through the eligibility criteria within the contract allocation process and will reflect the latest market and technological developments.

We are actively monitoring trends to ensure that the policy keeps pace with technical and commercial developments. Therefore, we have launched a call for evidence on the eligibility of crops in the SAF mandate, which will run until 16 March this year. It asks for evidence on potential benefits, risks and trade-offs of using crops in SAF production. In answer to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, about carbon dioxide, I am sure that evidence on that will be provided as a consequence of that call for evidence.

The call for evidence does not propose any changes to the SAF mandate. Should there be a case to review the feedstock eligibility criteria, it would be subject to consultation, and any changes would require amendments to legislation. We would not want to exclude specific feedstocks in the Bill in case updated evidence proves that they meet the sustainability criteria for eligibility in the SAF mandate.

In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on the position of the United States, we note that, but we will run the consultation first to understand the evidence arising from the questions we have asked.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Ravensdale, for tabling their amendments and ask that they do not press them based on the actions already being taken to give flexibility and ensure value for money.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

May I press the Minister a little on the point the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made? I listened very carefully both times he said it. The Government’s intention, unless something changes, is to exclude HEFA. Can he commit that if that intention changes and the Government direct some contracts to be issued which include HEFA, a Minister will come to the Dispatch Box to set out clearly and explicitly what has changed and the evidence that supported that change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a fair point. I mentioned the call for evidence precisely because it would be useful to have evidence from any party that cares to give it about using crops, for example. I am happy to say that in those circumstances, somebody should come back and say something about that position.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

I thank the Minister for making that strong statement from the Dispatch Box on the intention to exclude HEFA technology and feedstocks. That is further than the Government have gone before in their statements. It sets out a clear direction of travel for the legislation and the revenue certainty mechanism, and I thank him for that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 25, at end insert—
““UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel”: sustainable aviation fuel is “UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel” if any part of the process for converting any feedstock into the fuel takes place in the United Kingdom.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I am responding to Amendment 6 in this group, which seeks to cap the length of revenue certainty contracts to a maximum of 10 years. On the face of it, this might appear to be neat and disciplined but, in practice, we conclude that it is both arbitrary and unduly restrictive.

The noble Lord spoke about the need to control costs and we agree with that. It is also important, as we discuss this, to recognise that the Bill covers a range of technologies and huge investments going into them, but it may also include emerging technologies. Ten years is not derived from any settled evidence about what different SAF projects will require; it is simply a round number that seeks to be written into this primary legislation.

Some plants with high upfront capital costs and long asset lives may need longer-term revenue support to be financed at all, particularly in the current high interest rate environment. Others, especially later or more standard projects, could be perfectly viable on shorter contracts, which I am sure is the Government’s intention for many of the projects that will be considered. However, a single statutory ceiling takes no account of any of that diversity in these emerging markets. It is not really for us to know more than the Government and their officials, as they have details that we do not.

This amendment is also restrictive because it removes one of the Government’s key design levers. The ability to adjust contract length between technologies and over time, in response to costs and market maturity, is fundamental to achieving value for money. If we fix 10 years in the Bill, any future Government who judge that a 12-year or 15-year term is necessary to secure a first-of-a-kind project would be unable to do so without further primary legislation. This rigidity could also play into commercial hands, encouraging developers to structure bids around fixed terms in ways that actually undermine the very affordability that is spoken about.

While the intention is understandable, imposing an arbitrary timeline would remove the flexibility and pragmatism that any evidence-led scheme requires. It would, in effect, ask the Government to negotiate with one hand tied behind their back. We do not believe that this amendment is helpful in this emerging market, but we do think it is important that contracts are reviewed. On that, I ask the Minister, in the context of reporting later on, whether the length of caps that are imposed under the Bill is something that he would be prepared to include in the reporting information that will be made available.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 6 would require that the Secretary of State set a maximum contract term for revenue certainty contracts before exercising the regulation-making power in Clause 6. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the overall intention of the Bill, which is to generate a new and growing United Kingdom industry that, I hope—contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said—will be financed in the United Kingdom as well.

We are currently consulting on the detailed design of the revenue certainty mechanism. The consultation provides the rationale behind the indicative heads of terms, which sets out the framework for principal terms and conditions that could be included in a revenue certainty mechanism contract. As highlighted in the Government’s continuing consultation, we propose a 15-year term for all contracts. This aligns with the expected 10-year to 15-year debt repayment period that SAF producers will encounter. It is important that this flexibility is retained and not restricted by detailing a contract length in the Bill.

Final decisions are subject to the continuing consultation, which will inform the detailed design of the full terms and conditions of revenue certainty mechanism contracts. In answer to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am sure that we can find a reporting mechanism that sets out the actual length of those contracts. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to withdraw Amendment 6.

--- Later in debate ---

As drafted, the Bill gives the Government a clear, predictable route to bring the levy into force and the allocation contract under the transparency criteria. We believe that this is the better course of action. Again, reporting requirements secured in the previous group will help to monitor all these issues. I share the aims of value for money, clarity and fairness around the revenue certainty mechanism. We support the aims of the Bill but are concerned that the amendments are too arbitrary and would in many cases have unknown consequences, reduce flexibility and have serious consequences for the Bill’s ability to go forward.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this debate. Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seek to address how funds from the levy are used. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord from the Dispatch Box that money raised through the levy will be used only to support eligible SAF plants in the United Kingdom, and that that is already set out in the Bill.

Clause 6 restricts the costs incurred by the counterparty under the revenue certainty contracts and in carrying out its functions under the Bill. Under this clause, the levy funds will be used only to meet the cost of the revenue certainty mechanism scheme. It is important that the counterparty is able to recover its costs, which include the cost of administering the contracts, the levy and the payment of surpluses.

Amendment 10 intends to ensure that there is a specific mandatory point at which the supplier becomes liable to pay the levy. The Government agree with the intention of the amendment but believe that it is unnecessary because Clause 6(7) already provides that a person becomes liable to pay the levy at the same point when they become liable to an obligation under the SAF mandate.

On how individual levy contributions are calculated, it is important that the Bill provides sufficient flexibility to ensure that final levy design decisions deliver our design principles, including simplicity, solvency, affordability and fairness. The Government are currently reviewing responses to their recent consultation on the detailed design of the levy and engaging with stakeholders to deliver these objectives. I remind noble Lords that the regulations made under Clause 6(1), to set out how the levy will work, will be subject to scrutiny under the affirmative procedure, which will give Parliament the opportunity to continue to consider the approach.

Amendments 17 and 18, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seek to prevent the levy being imposed until a domestic sustainable aviation fuel producer is approaching readiness to receive payments under the Act. I reassure the noble Lord that the purpose of the levy, as set out in Clause 6, is to meet the costs of payments made by the counterparty to SAF producers and to cover the counterparty’s administrative costs. The costs of payments under RCM contracts will be insured only once eligible SAF is being produced and sold by producers who have entered into RCM contracts, which is the outcome sought by these amendments.

The Government are currently reviewing responses to their recent consultation on levy design. Some stakeholders have expressed a desire to build up a reserve fund prior to the first producer payments, which could help smooth out the costs of the scheme and help manage risks of underforecasting required payments. As the Government consider their response to the consultation, it is important that the Bill retains a degree of flexibility around levy design, which will be set out via secondary legislation and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, intends to introduce a standardised rate for the levy. We are currently reviewing responses to our recent consultation on the detailed design of the levy and continue to engage with stakeholders to help inform the drafting of levy regulations. Within the consultation, we sought views on the publication of a forecast levy rate, expressed in pence per litre, which could help provide greater transparency for the supply chain.

The Bill as drafted does not specify a particular mechanism and allows the Secretary of State to consider a range of options for calculating the levy paid by individual companies. It is important that the Bill retains a degree of flexibility around levy design, which will be set out via secondary legislation and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, I do not consider the amendment to be necessary.

To reassure noble Lords, the Government are live to the potential impacts of different levy designs and recognise industry’s desire for certainty and transparency, while ensuring fairness and affordability for the consumer. We recognise that the levy must be dynamic and responsive to the changing market, while ensuring that the counterparty has funds to make payments under the scheme. But, to be clear, this levy will not be used to generate unnecessary funds and will raise sufficient money to cover only the counterparty’s costs under the revenue certainty scheme.

Although final decisions will be informed by the consultation, we are exploring options that deliver this and many of the proposals, and options set out in that consultation could help provide greater certainty and transparency. As I have said, the levy regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will allow further parliamentary scrutiny. I hope noble Lords will note the steps the Government have taken in the levy design and that they therefore will not press their amendments.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a detailed explanation of the situation. I am greatly reassured by what he said. What matters in all this is that we provide the right balance. This is something the airlines are calling for, but we do not want it to unduly penalise fare payers, and to end up with disinvestment in conventional aviation fuel. I am reassured by much of what the Minister said, but I am looking to him and his colleagues to ensure over the coming months that that balance is properly found, so that we do not end up with legislation that has unintended consequences.

The Minister made a point about the reserve. I proposed six months because I believe it essential to have a short period of reserve building, but it must be short—it cannot be year after year. That was the point of my amendment. I am reassured by what he said, and I shall watch with interest what the Government do, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, concerns the potential impacts of this Bill on airline ticket prices. I entirely understand the motivation behind the amendment. Passengers and airlines deserve transparency about how the levy costs will flow through to fares. However, this transparency is already in the Bill, and this amendment is not a particularly good way to improve on it. These Benches accept that there will be reasonable and affordable costs involved in introducing a revenue certainty mechanism, which will reflect the necessary investment to drive the transition to sustainable aviation fuel. However, we cannot support this amendment, for several practical reasons.

Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State within one year of Royal Assent to publish a report assessing the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on ticket prices, including whether the average increase exceeds £1.50 per ticket per year, followed by further annual reports for as long as the mechanism operates. The intention is fair, but the proposed process is largely unworkable in our opinion. The mechanism will take time to design, consult on and implement. Contracts will not be allocated immediately, and levy collection will ramp up gradually as supply chains mature. Within 12 months, there would be no meaningful data to analyse, only speculative modelling. A report produced on that basis would lack credibility and offer little value to Parliament or consumers. In the early days, as required by this amendment as drafted, it would provide very little value or information at all. Moreover, the Bill and its associated frameworks already provide robust reporting obligations, so, again, this is not a choice between providing transparency through this amendment or having no transparency.

The Government will lay a report before Parliament on levy design, contract allocation, production volumes and market development. These will give Members regular insight into the performance and the cost trends associated with the Bill.

In addition, airlines, which are best placed to assess the costs passed through to fares, will report on their sustainable aviation fuel uptake and related costs under the SAF mandate and wider aviation reporting requirements. That industry-driven data will provide a timelier and more accurate picture of the real-world price effects than a separate government study could ever hope to achieve.

There are also serious practical and cost concerns. Calculating per-ticket impacts would require access to commercially sensitive data, such as flight occupancy levels, which the Government do not hold and cannot compel airlines to divulge without imposing disruptive burdens. Establishing a separate, perpetual reporting duty would therefore create unnecessary bureaucracy and expense without improving transparency.

The Government expect that airlines will readily report on the impact of the Bill on air tickets. The practical solution is to build on existing reporting channels and refine them through guidance if needed, rather than introducing an additional obligation that cannot deliver meaningful insights at the required pace.

We share the desire for transparency and recognise that costs must be visible and fairly borne for this market to work, but Amendment 12 would not be the right way to do that. The information it seeks will already be available through integrated, industry-based reporting mechanisms. Ministers and officials both expect that this will be reported. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment and support the Government’s practical approach to these problems.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, bearing in mind the diligent research of noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on sustainable aviation fuel, I have resisted repeating the general aims of the Bill, but I want to say in respect of Amendment 12 that the Government are committed to keeping air travel affordable for UK holidaymakers and UK air travellers while fostering the development of a United Kingdom sustainable aviation fuel industry.

As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it will take time for contract negotiations, for sustainable aviation fuel plants to be constructed and for the fuel itself to be produced and sold before any meaningful effect on fares can be assessed. The Government’s cost-benefit analysis, from which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted, of the revenue certainty mechanism that was published last year is the most reliable estimate of the likely impact on passenger air fares over this period. Given that little has changed since that cost-benefit analysis was produced, the amendment is unnecessary, as it would merely produce the same answer. I hope my explanation is sufficient for the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it was open to the Minister to take up the offer of my noble friend Lord Harper and suggest that any infelicities in the drafting of the amendment—for example, the requirement that the first report should happen within the first year—could be dealt with through his offering to bring forward an amendment himself at Third Reading that was drafted with the benefit of government legal advice, but he has not done so. He has no difficulty with relying on speculative reports that claim to estimate the cost of this measure, but he does not want reports based on actual experience at due time in the future.

As I say, there is a voice that is not being heard in this, except from these Benches, and that is the voice of the consumer. We will not give up on the consumer, and I wish to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 12.

--- Later in debate ---

Anyway, we are coming to the end of consideration of an important Bill. I hope that the relatively large number of noble Lords who are here feel that they have benefited in some way from listening to this debate. It was a dull matter in Committee—just three or four of us stuck in Grand Committee—but it is nice to know that there are others taking an interest in it today. I started out knowing nothing at all about sustainable aviation fuel, but I feel I know a great deal more now. If noble Lords feel the same, we will all have achieved something to our benefit in the course of Report.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I might constrain myself to discussing the amendment before us. In that respect, I offer my thanks to both the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who have followed the course of the Bill very closely. I have listened very carefully to everything they said. I am grateful for their scrutiny on this particular subject and I am pleased to have the opportunity to address it in more detail.

I recognise the need for transparent and accessible reporting to monitor the effectiveness of the RCM scheme. I will continue to explore options for reporting on the RCM scheme, including by using existing reporting. For example, we are already publishing statistics on the volume of SAF supplied each year in the UK under the SAF mandate and we will continue to do so. This covers the total volume of SAF supplied to the UK, the fuel type and greenhouse gas savings from the SAF supplied.

The renewable transport fuel obligations statistics and reports, which cover costs and the fuel supplied into the UK, are published regularly. We are taking a similar approach with the SAF mandate. Additionally, a formal review has been incorporated into the SAF mandate legislation, with the initial review scheduled to occur by 2030. This process will facilitate an evaluation of the availability of SAF supply. We will consider further options for reporting, including interactions with the emissions trading scheme reporting on the use of fuel by aircraft. These existing publications will provide an extensive picture of the UK SAF market, as well as the revenue certainty mechanism scheme.

We remain absolutely committed to transparent reporting that is comprehensive, regular and accessible in one location, once the revenue certainty mechanism has contracts in place. In addition to the above, this could include requirements for producers to share information with the counterparty. This would be consistent with how the counterparty for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero contracts for difference schemes publishes information on contract terms and levy rates. As raised earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we will include the length of RCM contract terms in our transparent reporting.

The current live consultation on indicative heads of terms for the revenue certainty mechanism contracts proposes potential options. However, we will need to continue to seek views from industry on the mechanism for this reporting, so further work will be required before we can finalise our approach.

In response to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we continue to work closely with my noble friend Lord Whitehead’s department on the global availability of feedstocks as sustainable fuels. While I cannot commit my noble friend Lord Whitehead to a meeting, I do sit opposite him in our palatial ministerial office upstairs, so I will mention to him my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s interest and I will see what he says.

I hope that what I have said about reporting is sufficient reassurance for the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, not to press Amendment 13.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his support for my amendment. From listening to the debate, I think I am living in a different world from the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Moylan, who seem to have an unhealthy obsession with these Benches’ and my personal contributions, rather than the Bill before us, no matter how dry it might be.

This amendment and the previous amendment that was discussed are completely different, as the Government have recognised. I am grateful to the Minister for listening and agreeing to the intent of my amendment on the effectiveness of the RCM scheme, which looks to make sure that we have some comprehensive reporting in one place, so that we can understand how effectively this scheme is working.

I thank the Minister for listening and responding to our suggestions in this area—both mine and my noble friend Lord Russell’s—and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13.

Public Transport: Remote Communities

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the service, quality and affordability of public transport to remote communities.

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

My noble friend asked this Question in relation to the Isles of Scilly. At present, there are no plans to introduce a new subsidy, regulatory framework or funding model for the islands’ transport services. Support is therefore a matter for local discretionary schemes, which the Isles of Scilly council already has. However, the Government have provided targeted support where appropriate, including £750,000 in July 2025 through the clean maritime demonstration competition to explore a potential clean technology passenger sea route between the mainland and the islands.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Coincidentally, I received a letter last Friday from his colleague, Keir Mather, the Minister for shipping, who gave me much the same answer, but he prayed in aid the £3 bus fare cap which goes around the whole country. He regretted that there was no similar scheme for the Isles of Scilly, because it was not a local transport authority. The result is that, rather than £3, if a bus could get to Scilly, it would cost £100 single—plus somewhere between £10 and £70 within the islands. So I am grateful to my noble friend, but it needs a closer discussion. I hope that my noble friend will agree to have a meeting with myself and the chairman of the council, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, to see whether we can come up with a solution that is economically viable for the council and something better for the population.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend will recognise the 28 miles of sea between the mainland and the Isles of Scilly and that the road network on the Isles of Scilly is all of 14 miles. So it is hard to see that comparable bus fares and bus practices are applicable. But, recognising the particular challenges with transport both to and from the islands and between them, my noble friend Lady Taylor and I will be happy to meet my noble friend on the Benches behind me and the leader of the council to discuss these issues further.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, there are higher per-passenger costs and of course structural challenges to serve low-density remote areas. Will the Government therefore revise their bus service funding formula to introduce a rural weighting to help authorities provide the public transport that is essential for these communities?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am surprised that the noble Baroness is not aware that the local transport funding formula does recognise rural areas. We had extensive discussions, as the noble Baroness will recognise, in the then Bus Services Bill, and, indeed, the Government, compared with previous Governments, have chosen, rightly, to fund every English transport authority in a way that was not done previously.

It is hard to see quite how bus services permeate some very remote places, but the noble Baroness will also know that there are some demand-responsive schemes—transport and others—which are eligible for subsidy. In the English devolution Bill, we are a couple of days from discussing taxi and private hire vehicles, which also form part of the transport solution in those areas.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

Will the Minister look at the role that the Community Transport Association can play? I believe that it can play a vital and important role, particularly in remote country areas, usually with small charities. In the past, the Department for Transport—I cannot remember exactly when—set up a special grant so that those charities could apply directly to get new community buses, which makes a direct impact and does a great deal of good work, particularly in remote rural areas.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. Community transport is a very elegant way of solving some of these issues. I am glad he cannot remember when that funding was established, because I cannot either. It might even have been when the noble Lord was the Transport Secretary himself. But his point is well taken: community transport is a good answer in those circumstances, and I echo his point that it should be well regarded and we should look at it in those circumstances.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, can I ask my noble friend the Minister to join me in thanking the many hundreds of volunteers who run our community transport services? Furthermore, when we see the extension of combined authorities with transport responsibilities covering more rural areas, will the Minister give consideration to the role that community transport services can play in the provision of public transport to ensure that they are not overlooked and continue to add value and good-quality services in the areas that need them most?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I completely agree with my noble friend. People who serve voluntarily in community transport should be absolutely praised for coming out in all weathers for everybody. As I said, and as he is right to say, it is a good solution to mobility in those areas and we will reiterate the use of these things as the mayoral combined authorities are established.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the great transport scandals in this country is that it costs something like £20 per mile to take the smallest car from Portsmouth to Fishbourne on the Isle of Wight? There is a monopoly there that operates completely against the economic interests of those trying to make a living on the Isle of Wight and, as we call it, the north island.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is certainly correct to identify that people on the Isle of Wight think that this is a problem. When I wrote the Union Connectivity Review report, although it was not specifically about the Isle of Wight, I had more correspondence from the Isle of Wight than I did from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales.

This Government are tackling this issue. We set up the Cross-Solent Transport Group and Minister Mather, to whom my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred, has recently appointed Brian Johnson CBE, the ex-MCA chief executive, as the group’s independent chair to, first of all, sort out its terms of reference and then focus on locally led solutions to what the noble Lord correctly describes as a perceived and real problem of connectivity between the Isle of Wight and the English mainland.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government are so worried about connectivity to the Isle of Wight, why are they introducing a carbon tax on the domestic maritime sector from June this year? According to the operators, this will have a devastating effect on fares not only to the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly but to the many other islands that are dependent on affordable ferry connections to the mainland. Do the Government have any idea of the mayhem this is causing at a time when they are meant to be concentrating on reducing the cost of living?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord ought to know that, in respect of ferry transport to the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly, new ships and methods of transport are being procured and built in order both to provide up-to-date transport and to reduce carbon emissions on those services. We reject absolutely the concept that somehow these ferry routes have to survive under conditions of excess carbon emissions when modern ships, and indeed the technology I referred to in respect of the potential new service to the Isles of Scilly, are there for the very purpose of reducing carbon emissions but increasing connectivity.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend the Minister could point to the noble Lord opposite that the mayhem that will be caused by prices will be far outstripped by the mayhem caused by climate change. I refer him to the latest projections, which show that climate change is increasing rapidly and that, unless we take decisive action on carbon emissions, we face a very frightening future indeed.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend absolutely. More to the point, the ferry operators recognise that, too, as befits the ordering of new ships with reduced carbon emissions and the experimentation to the Isles of Scilly to which I previously referred.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will recognise that many remote rural areas are particularly reliant on their rail services. Coming from Thurso, which is the most northerly station on the main line of the United Kingdom, I recognise both the fragility and importance of the Far North Line. While I recognise that much of the responsibility for that lies with the Scottish Government, does he agree with me that the creation of Great British Railways offers the potential for a reset between the various companies that are responsible: ScotRail, Network Rail and Great British Railways? To that end, what discussions is he having with the Scottish Government?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Viscount is certainly right to say that the railway to Wick and Thurso is a lifeline. In answer to his question, we have had a lot of cordial discussion with the Scottish Government, which is resulting in a methodology of operation proposed as a consequence of establishing Great British Railways, which will continue the integration of operations and infrastructure in Scotland and therefore continue the operation of that line into what one would hope to be the very, very distant future.

Nationalised Passenger Rail Services

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what performance improvements have been delivered by nationalised passenger rail services since 28 November 2024.

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

My Lords, public ownership is a vital step towards reforming our railways and rebuilding trust and pride. On average, publicly owned train operators perform better on punctuality and cancellations than those yet to come under public ownership. They are already delivering improvements, with lower cancellations on the TransPennine Express and Northern, and South Western quadrupling the number of new trains entering service. I expect all operators, both public and private, to deliver good performance for passengers.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, when the figures were published a month ago, cancellations were reported to have risen by around 50% on South Western services in the months following nationalisation in May last year, alongside a marked increase in delay minutes and late arrivals. Clause 18 of the Railways Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote high standards of railway service performance. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to incentivise and enforce those standards in practice, given that the proposed passenger standards authority appears to have no direct enforcement powers and the Office of Rail and Road’s remit in this area is being restricted?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Just to produce a cheerful note, I can tell the Minister that despite appalling South Western journeys, I travelled a fortnight ago and it was excellent.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I travelled this morning and it was pretty good.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I have asked the Minister a couple of times about transition payments made during the renationalisation process by the Government to the private operators, and the way that happened previously when franchises changed hands. Is he yet in a position to tell us—this is nearly 12 months later, so he really ought to be—how much money has actually been paid in transition payments to the private operators so far?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I should have foreseen that the noble Lord would ask that question. I will have to write to him because I knew he would ask it, but I forgot to research the answer.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

Does my noble friend acknowledge that the spokesperson for the Conservative Party has a pretty thick skin to ask this Question? After all, the last Conservative Government renationalised no fewer than four train operating companies during their period of office because of the incompetence of the operators at that time. Can the Minister assure the House that we will not return to those days and that the improvement we have seen in punctuality and service, so far as the nationalised companies are concerned, will continue in future?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. LNER, in particular, has demonstrated all the excellent characteristics that a public service train company can deliver. The previous Government did not attempt to put back into the private sector any of the other train companies that came into public ownership during their term of office. All those companies are now doing better under this Government’s supervision than they were.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Has the Minister assessed the impact of the new timetable on east coast main line punctuality? There have been some very severe delays, which are mainly infrastructure-related and therefore the responsibility of Network Rail, a different nationalised company. It appears that the new timetable does not give space to deal with delays when they arise.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am sure that I have just written to the noble Lord on the same subject, but I have been monitoring the east coast main line timetable daily since December when it went in. There have been some very good days, but he is right that there have been some infrastructure failures. There have also been some train failures, one of them really rather catastrophic. On a good day it works quite well; on a bad day it recovers reasonably well. There are a whole host of people working really hard to make it work. It is tight, but it follows £4 billion of investment in both infrastructure and trains, and it is right that the railway should operate as many trains as it can and operate them well.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it is ridiculous to expect, after the ruinous privatisation of our rail system and 13 years of neglect by the Tory Government, that we can fix something in 13 months that they took 13 years to wreck?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

One of the interesting things that has been going on since this Government took office is re-establishing some pretty basic rules about staff allocation—the numbers of drivers and guards and the way in which they are utilised—which in some of these companies was miles away from what ought to have been established. As my noble friend says, it takes a long time to put things right, but we are putting them right.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

If the Minister was travelling on a successful South Western train this morning, he was on a different train from the one I was on. I ask him to look back: the very first breath that this Labour Government took was to give a record-breaking, inflation-busting pay rise to train drivers. One would normally expect, in a public service, for that to bring about better punctuality and improvement of service, yet all those have gone backwards and there has been an increase in the number of complaints. I know some people suggested at the time that it was all to pay for the Government’s friends; we can dismiss that with a wave of our hands. But what is, and was, the point of an inflation-busting pay increase to train drivers if there is no improvement in public service?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Let us reflect on the effect of the continuous dispute with train drivers, which cost £700 million or £800 million in revenue; on the fact that the pay increase was about 2% more than the previous Government intended to pay; and, particularly, on the fact that there were no productivity proposals on the table at the time it was paid, because the previous Government had wasted their time having a discussion with the owners about what percentage of those productivity benefits they took for themselves and, in consequence, there was nothing on the table to put forward. We have changed all those positions.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, there is nothing more annoying than being on the platform early, trying to go to work, when it comes up saying, “Staff didn’t turn up. Train cancelled”. This is happening regularly on TfL, on the line from Elstree & Borehamwood to London. What can be done about that?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord will find that that goes via Thameslink, which will be taken into public ownership in four months. It is one of the operators whose management tries modestly hard, but it has a problem with a number of drivers. In due course, the Government will take steps to fix it.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, last time the trains were nationalised, they were dirty and late, and the sandwiches were so old that they were curling up at the corners. Why is it going to be different this time?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

That is a sort of music hall view of railway life, is it not? The truth is that the system this Government inherited had got to the end of its life—that is a polite way of putting it. You can prove that it did because the train companies that they took into public ownership stayed in public ownership. They chose to keep LNER, which had three failed operators, in public ownership because, frankly, it ran better. That is what we are trying to achieve. The growth in passenger numbers, which is greater in all the publicly owned train companies over the last year than it has been in privately owned operating companies, is testimony to that.