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

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce legislation to provide for the registration, insurance and other matters relating to privately owned e-scooters, e-bikes and pedal bikes.

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

My Lords, the Government have no plans to legislate for the registration or insurance of e-bikes or pedal bikes. This would be likely to put many people off cycling, with negative environmental and health benefits. However, it is illegal for private e-scooters to be used on public roads. The Government will consider both registration and insurance for e-scooters in any future legislation. I look forward to further exploring this important subject with the noble Baroness in our forthcoming meeting.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, and I look forward to meeting him tomorrow. Presumably, the Government are seeking a safe space for all road users, including pedestrians, car drivers, e-scooters, e-bikes and bikes. Currently, 1 million e-scooters are being used illegally on public roads without insurance. Damage caused by their accidents is recovered through Motor Insurers’ Bureau claims, 47% of which involve e-scooters, including pedestrians between the ages of seven and 80 being struck by an e-scooter. Although I share the Government’s aim to increase and improve micromobility at every level, will the noble Lord ensure that the Government apply the law as it currently stands and review the possibility of extending to e-scooters, e-bikes and bikes both registration and insurance? It is inappropriate that only car drivers are currently covering the cost of this insurance.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I feel that this is a rerun of the noble Baroness’s previous Question. She is right that the road network, including the pavement, should be safe for all varieties of road users, including all the people she mentions and pedestrians. It clearly is an issue, and I respect her view, and that of other noble Lords, that it is an issue. The previous Government started a rental trial in 2020 and announced primary legislation in May 2022 but failed to deliver it. This Government are giving serious consideration to these issues, including the issue of insurance, and I am sure that this subject will come back—probably weekly—until this legislation.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister consider banning e-bikes and e-scooters on pavements and introduce a special lane on the road for these vehicles to rescue pedestrians from what is currently a major risk?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

We have limited road space in the towns and cities of the United Kingdom. I have wrestled with this issue personally, when I ran Transport for London for nine and a half years. It is extraordinarily difficult. The answer is a set of laws, and people conforming with those laws, that leave pedestrians safe, disabled people safe and road users of all sorts safe. There is an issue about enforcement—the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, raised that issue in this House a few days ago and produced the very competent Sergeant Ford of the City of London Police, who has done a lot on enforcement regarding illegal e-cycles. The answer is proper behaviour, a road network that copes with all its users and proper enforcement.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords, phone thefts using e-bikes and e-scooters, and general antisocial behaviour by those using such vehicles, plagued the residents of Stratford City in my former constituency, spreading fear and intense feelings of unease. What sanctions can be deployed against such bike users, and are there any plans to increase the sanctions?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, on at least two occasions recently when I have asked questions about e-bikes and e-scooters and the Labour Government’s policy towards them, the Minister has replied by telling me about the previous Conservative Government’s policy towards them. It is becoming increasingly clear that the reason for that is that this Government really do not know what their policy towards them ought to be. Will the Minister answer the question I asked last time? Are the Government, essentially, happy for the current state of drift and danger to continue on our streets pretty well indefinitely?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Last time the noble Lord said that to me, I repeated the answer I gave him on 1 April, which is that

“I do not … care to be lectured about drift by somebody who represents a party that did an experiment in 2021, published some results in 2022 and then did nothing”.—[Official Report, 1/4/25; col. 117.]


That answer is still the same. The Government, as the noble Lord heard in answer to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, are considering what to do. It is a complex problem. I have explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, among others, that we have to make some decisions about what needs to be in legislation. It is not a simple thing to do, and it is a great shame that his Government did not contemplate and do something about it.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, somebody has to speak up on behalf of pedal bikes. I say that as somebody who cycled from London to Vienna and back many years ago, when I was younger, and somebody who was also knocked down by a pedal bike two or three years ago. Is it not the right policy to encourage the widest possible use of pedal bikes? It is healthy and good for the environment.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I have cycled only as far as Amsterdam on a pedal bike, so I admire him for going to Vienna and back. I am not sure that I could do it now.

The reason why I answered the original question the way that I did is that it is very important not to put people off a mode of transport that is environmentally friendly and safe and, when done in the right way, is a huge benefit to our society. That is why registration and insurance of pedal bikes is such a difficult issue, because it would undoubtedly put people off cycling. But we also have to recognise that there are behaviours about cycling in general, and the use of e-bikes and e-scooters, that are very threatening and damaging to pedestrians and can cause very serious accidents and death. That is why the Government intend to introduce appropriate offences to the Road Traffic Act 1988 about the more serious offences caused by dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, many of us have children and grandchildren. To go on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, can the Government confirm absolutely that there is no move at all to register bicycles for anybody, but particularly for young people? Otherwise, we will have six and seven year-olds who want to learn to ride a bicycle being registered for some foolish reason, when the only person they are a danger to, sadly, is themselves.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I share the noble Lord’s enthusiasm for teaching kids to cycle, which is why I said to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that the Government have no plans to legislate for the registration or insurance of e-bikes or pedal bikes.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister keeps telling us that this is complex and difficult, but meanwhile he is not doing anything either. Does he understand not only the dimensions of the harm that is being caused, particularly to pedestrians, of riding on pavements, dumping on pavements and sailing through red lights, as well as the corrosive effect that this normalisation of anti-social and unlawful behaviour is having on public confidence in tackling lawlessness?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The one thing that I did not say was that the Government are doing nothing. The Government are considering very seriously what needs to be done to deal with this issue, and noble Lords will know—because I put it in the Library—that the range of legislation affecting particularly e-bikes and e-scooters across Europe and beyond gives us some difficult and serious choices about how to legislate and in which way. In the meantime, as my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint said in response to the Question last week from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, the Government are taking serious action on dangerous and inconsiderate cycling as well as about confiscating bikes when they are used for crime. I have sympathy with what the noble Baroness says, and we are doing something about it.

European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate. This has been an important discussion, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I was not aware of EGNOS until recently. I am afraid that I have also concluded that it is imperative to use acronyms in this speech because I cannot spell it out every time over 12 minutes, which is a shame. The topic has been amply explained by noble Lords and I do not need to explain it again. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for setting out the history of EGNOS, with which I concur. It understandably attracts interest, particularly from the aviation sector and those with an interest in its future success.

I begin by reaffirming this Government’s unwavering commitment to maintaining a safe, modern and innovative aviation system. I welcome the noble Earl’s endorsement of those principles, too. In answer to the question of why this department is here and why I am speaking, the Government recognise the importance of positioning, navigation and timing technologies for our security and prosperity. That goes much wider than EGNOS and aviation, impacting all parts of our lives. DSIT is leading on this wider work with the Government’s framework for greater PNT resilience, but my department is working across government to understand the requirements for transport.

We recognise the value the sector places on services such as EGNOS in supporting aviation safety and reliability, particularly during difficult weather and at smaller aerodromes. Since the UK’s withdrawal from the programme as a result of leaving the EU, as noble Lords have heard, flights have continued to operate safely with no degradation in our overall safety regime. We are carefully examining all available options for supporting the continued operation of safe and reliable flights, which could well include membership of EGNOS. My noble friend Lord Berkeley is right: we are talking to the European Union and a better relationship will enable us to participate if we choose to. That answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about whether we could join if we so wished, but it depends on whether we choose to or not. He also made a point about Galileo, which I am not equipped to answer, but I will speak to my noble friend the Technology Minister so that he can have an answer in due course.

It is critical that any solution is based on clear operational needs and a strong value-for-money case for both users and taxpayers. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that, if the previous Government had considered paying for the system, they could have done so during their time in office. This Government are continuing this work and we will continue to work closely with industry experts and stakeholders to find the most effective and sustainable solution. If noble Lords have further evidence to contribute to a value-for-money case, my department will be pleased to hear it. I note the suggestion from the noble Earl that we should ask the aviation industry whether it would be prepared to contribute to the costs of joining.

On safety, we must be clear that we have a highly robust safety regime in place in the UK supported by navigation aids and procedures that remain fully compliant with international safety. The Civil Aviation Authority continues to ensure that all procedures are managed appropriately. We recognise that EGNOS or a similar SBAS could have operational benefits for small, regional and general aviation airports. It would provide greater resilience in poor weather and support access but, as the noble Lord Davies, said, ILS is used at larger airports which are not affected and this would not be useful to them.

The Government appreciate the frustration of those facing delays and disruptions to their flights from poor weather as well as the importance of reliable connections, especially for those living in more remote areas of the United Kingdom. Since I took office, I have heard several times from my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the needs of residents of and visitors to the Isles of Scilly, and I respect his continuing advocacy on their behalf. The Government are already taking important steps to support the connectivity of communities, and we are continuing to look closely at this issue to see what more can be done.

It is also important to be clear that emergency medical and search-and-rescue operations have continued safely and effectively since our withdrawal from EGNOS. These services have access to a range of procedures and capabilities, such as point-in-space approaches, which greatly assist in increasing the utility of air ambulances and helicopters in poor visibility conditions. SBAS services, such as EGNOS, are not currently widely used across Europe to support operational capabilities. We are determined to ensure that the UK’s aviation safety regime remains world-leading, which is why we are continuing to consider the best option for the United Kingdom. This work is continuing, and no decision has been made.

It is clear that noble Lords who have contributed today, and others, deeply care about having an SBAS such as EGNOS, and we fully recognise that it can have benefits. However, it is also important that every penny of taxpayers’ money, particularly in a time of tight finances, is spent responsibly, efficiently and wisely and that any decision made represents value for both users and taxpayers. We are continuing to consider what an effective, impactful and deliverable solution that works for the UK could look like, and no decision has been made.

The Government recognise the importance of positioning, navigation and timing technologies for our security and prosperity. That is why we are implementing the policy framework for greater PNT resilience and developing proposals for a national timing centre and enhanced long-range navigation systems. The work around UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system is an important part of that, which is why we are continuing to consider the best option for the UK’s specific requirements.

I turn to the future of flight because there are constant developments in emerging technologies—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on to another subject, given the particular circumstances in Scotland, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to, and the many islands, if the Scottish Government wished to make a service agreement with the European Union for this purpose, but the United Kingdom Government had chosen not to, do they have any scope to do so?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Rather than filibustering for a few minutes while I refer to the knowledgeable officials behind me, I think I had better write to him about that. I can see an answer coming: it says, “Not sure. We’d need to check”. That is very wise.

I turn to the constant developments in technologies, particularly in drones and uncrewed aircraft. This is an important, evolving area, and the full range of requirements are still being mapped out. There may well be applications where SBAS and EGNOS could be useful. As the Government have ambitious plans for the UK to be a global leader in creating a future-of-flight ecosystem fit for the future, ensuring that we can fully realise the social and economic benefits of new and emerging aviation technologies, we must continue to think about this work. It could be said that I am saying that we are just not doing anything, but we are doing something. These rapid developments, particularly in drones used beyond the line of sight, may well provide an increasing case for this technology and for EGNOS in future.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has given us a very interesting progress report on any discussions taking place with the European Union, the CAA and others, but no decisions have been made. Can he give us any estimate about when the next decision might be achieved?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. It is a good question because developments in drones, particularly drones beyond line of sight, uncrewed aircraft and flying taxis have been much in the news recently. There are many applications way beyond traditional air applications. There is activity for drones beyond line of sight not only on the railway but in better policing. Those things would affect a judgment about an investment in this and whether the continuing cost of it is worth investing in. I urge my noble friend not to ask us to be too peremptory in making a once-and-for-all decision when technology is changing as, because of that, the justification for doing this might increase and we might get to the answer that my noble friend wants.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive contributions, which reflect the strong interest in maintaining the UK’s continued leadership in aviation safety and innovation. We remain committed to ensuring safety and efficiency. We recognise the real value of systems such as EGNOS, but we must also consider the financial implications and seek solutions that offer the best value for money.

On the contributions of noble Lords about the cost of it, or the cost when it was around £35 million—I cannot confirm whether that might be the current cost or not—if the previous Government could not justify it, in these difficult financial circumstances we have a duty to justify public expenditure. However, noble Lords will have heard me say that we are considering it not only for the benefits from EGNOS for the purposes described in the discussion today but because the future of drone and uncrewed aircraft technology is rapidly developing. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that we are strongly considering it. I am grateful for all that they have said.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, but what representation has the department had from the CAA on this issue?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The department is in constant discussion with the CAA on this issue. I do not have any evidence that the CAA believes that reimplementing EGNOS is a matter of the greatest concern, but as the noble Lord asked the question, I will go away, find out what the current position with the CAA is and write to him about it.

Driving Test Delays

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce delays in taking a driving test.

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

My Lords, this Government continue to work hard to tackle car practical driving test waiting times. They provided 1.95 million tests last year and have so far recruited a further 170 driving examiners nationally, but further action is needed. In April, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced further measures to tackle the test backlog. This included DVSA’s fast-track consultation on improving test booking rules, launched on 28 May, to prevent learner drivers being charged excessive fees and to combat test-buying bots.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The Minister may recall our earlier exchange on the subject, when he said:

“The real answer is to reduce the length of time it takes to get a test. Currently in England, it is nearly 21 weeks. The Government have a target to reduce that to seven weeks by the end of December this year”.—[Official Report, 13/1/25; col. 909.]


Since then, waiting times have gone up, the December target has moved back to summer next year and, recently, the 60-plus driving test centres in and around London had no slots available at all. Into this chaos, we now have ticket touts using bots to hoover up the available slots at £62 a time and then reselling them to desperate learner drivers for £200 or more. This is not selling tickets for Glastonbury; this is a government service for people who need to drive to get to work. The only people who should book tests are those who want to take them, and if they cannot take the test, the slot should go back to the DVSA. This is a racket ripping off learner drivers. Why do the Government not stop it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s inheritance in this matter was that, as of July 2024, there were 532,782 car practical driving tests booked. That number has gone up, as the noble Lord remarks, but the series of actions taken by this Government is far greater than any set of actions taken by the previous Government—in fact, I cannot find any actions taken by them, other than two disputes with driving examiners, which pushed down the number of tests. This Government have done several things, and the consultation I referred to previously, launched a few days ago, is about putting a stop to the exploitation of learner drivers. The previous Government could have done more, but this Government are doing it now.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister outline whether the Government are considering using AI to better detect and block bot-driven booking abuse; for example, monitoring booking patterns and identifying suspicious activity in real time to help prevent bots monopolising test availability?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The Government are using modern technology to do just that. As a result of some of the actions taken since the Government took office, there has been a further number of warnings, suspensions and closed accounts. That is a consequence of monitoring what is going on. However, it has to be said that the people who use the bots are always one step ahead, so the consultation launched recently is about changing some of the rules to make sure it is not worth using bots. We have to make sure that people who want to book tests themselves, and driving instructors and the businesses they run, both have the opportunity of booking tests so as to get people working and contributing to the economy.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, having listened carefully to what the Minister said in response to my noble friend Lord Young, I will make two points. First, when we left office, we had reduced the backlog from a 20-week delay at its peak to 15 weeks. Since then, it has got worse, not better. Secondly, if the Minister looks more carefully in his folder, he will see that we did have a comprehensive plan, with a number of steps that we took—remarkably similar to the steps that the Government themselves have laid out—and that had some success in bringing down that backlog. The simple question to the Minister is: why has it got worse on his watch?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I welcome another former Secretary of State for Transport to the House, and I look forward to my interactions with him. Looking back at the numbers of tests booked, in fact he is right: there was a modest change from 2023 to 2024. The 2023 figure was 548,000 tests and the 2024 figure was 532,000. This is not an easy issue to solve, and the truth is that behaviours have changed, but what we are concentrating on here is a series of measures, including the latest consultation—which was clearly not planned by the previous Government because it is as a result of the call for evidence from December last year, which had 27,000 responses. This fast-track consultation is about changing the rules to make sure that people who try to profit through bots do not succeed.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, the last time we discussed this question in your Lordships’ House, I told the House how I had personal experience from a member of my family on this issue, who paid way over the odds to get a timely test. While I welcome the consultation that the Minister described, can he also say something about what the Government are doing to recruit more driving examiners so that more slots can be made available? The secondary market is thriving because what ought to be a government service that is easily available is not.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. Of course, it is not right that people should be paying a premium for something that is a public service. Since July 2024, 287 recruits have been taken on board and started a training course, of which 170 have completed training successfully, 74 failed to complete the course and 43 are in training, and a further 178 are either booked for a training start or are in pre-employment checks after accepting an offer. The Government are working hard to increase the number of tests, but, as I said previously, people’s behaviour is changing: because they know that currently it is quite difficult, they are booking the test almost when they start and get a provisional licence. We have to increase the number of tests available through having more driving examiners—and there is more work yet to do to increase the number of people who can train and test prospective driving examiners—but we also have to do things to the booking system to reduce the prevalence of bots being successful.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, how does that figure for driving instructors compare with the 450 that, in January, the Minister stood at that Dispatch Box and pledged to recruit with a view to eliminating the problem by December?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Well, if the noble Lord adds the 287 who have been taken on board and started the training course to the future training pipeline of 178, I think he will see that it gives 465, which is extraordinarily close to the figure that I cited last time.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

If we had proceeded with identity cards, some of the fiddling which is now taking place would never have been able to happen. Is it not a great regret that the coalition Government and the two parties opposite abandoned that, and is it not time that when we come round again to review our position on immigration right across the board, we need to return to looking at identity cards?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I would defer to my noble friend Lord Hanson, sitting next to me, who probably has a far greater grasp of whether that is a good thing to do. In a sense, I am not sure that that will help here, because the one thing that you must have to book a driving test is a provisional driving licence, and with that you get an identity. The difficulty is not that the original bookers do not have an identity; it is the test being swapped around—in some cases, several times, up to 10 times—and not being able to be utilised in the end by people who need them.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, I completely appreciate that my noble friend is trying to clear up the mess that he was left with, but is he aware of a problem whereby for those who have passed the theory test, because of the delays in getting the practical test, the passing of the theory test runs out? Is this something that he is aware of, and could he look at extending the validity of the theory test so that when people get the practical test, they do not have to pay twice for the theory test?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that; I am aware of this. What we must not do in all this is reduce the safety content. The rule about theory tests and their expiry after two years is designed to make sure that when you take a practical test, you have a really up-to-date grasp of the basics of road safety and driving. The Government are not currently planning to relax that. The solution, which we have talked about already, is to have more tests with more examiners and more people training examiners in order for people to be able to get their test faster.

Channel Tunnel: International Rail Strategy

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are supporting the Campaign for Better Transport’s proposals to create an international rail strategy to increase the usage of the Channel Tunnel from the existing 50 per cent for passengers and 10 per cent for freight.

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

My Lords, we welcome the recent report. This Government support a thriving international rail passenger services market, given the benefits of greater choice, new services and lower fares, as well as the opportunity of serving Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford with international trains. We are also keen to see the growth of international rail freight, which supports the Government’s growth mission; we are working hard to increase freight flows through the tunnel.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging Answer, but he will know that in 2010 Deutsche Bahn brought one of its ICE trains through the Channel Tunnel to St Pancras with a view to starting through services to Germany from 2012. Other companies have indicated a similar interest, but nothing at all has happened. Does my noble friend agree not only that it is important to increase the use of stations that are now out of use, such as Ebbsfleet and Ashford, but that the tunnel access charges need to be reduced if these services are to be competitive? On freight, is he aware that the amount of freight currently going through the Channel Tunnel by rail is less than went on the train ferries operated by British Rail more than 30 years ago?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I think I was there when the Deutsche Bahn train was at St Pancras in 2010; sadly, as my noble friend says, that did not materialise. There is currently a real opportunity for more passenger traffic to more destinations, and this Government are determined to seize it. For example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently signed a memorandum of understanding with her Swiss counterpart to explore the setting up of a direct connection with Switzerland.

On the charging situation, the access charging framework for the Channel Tunnel provides for an incremental reduction in unit charges as traffic levels increase. Eurotunnel also operates a discount scheme for new routes; HS1 is currently consulting on a similar scheme. Those are important for new entrants. The recent review of the control period charges by the Office of Rail and Road reduced them by 10.4% for passenger trains and by 66% for freight trains. The volume of freight needs to increase; it would be good if it were greater than what the old train ferries coped with.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, when the Channel Tunnel opened 31 years ago on 6 May, the forecast for freight traffic was between 8 million and 10 million tonnes. It peaked at 3 million tonnes then fell to 1 million tonnes. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said in his Question, there is enormous scope for taking freight off our roads and putting it through the tunnel. What specific measures do the Government envisage taking to achieve this?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that those statistics are disappointing. As she notes, the aspiration then was for far more than currently exists. In answer to the previous question, I said that real reductions in charges, particularly for freight on HS1 and the charging regimes for both the tunnel and HS1, will help to encourage freight traffic. I am spending a lot of my time speaking to potential Channel Tunnel users to demonstrate to them the Government’s enthusiasm for more freight through the tunnel.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, given the report’s finding that better international rail links could replace 6.5 million short-haul flights per year, will the Government commit to cross-departmental work to actively shift passengers from air to rail for short international travel? That has the potential to cut CO₂ emissions by up to 680,000 tonnes annually.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right about the environmental benefits of travelling by train and of replacing short-haul air traffic. That is why we are putting in so much effort to create opportunities now for greater use of the tunnel to more destinations and by more operators. I have recently seen all but one of the potential competitors for Eurostar. The noble Baroness may know that the greatest difficulty is the availability of depot space in London. The Office of Rail and Road recently concluded an interim report, and I have asked the department to look urgently at other sites that can be used to increase depot capacity and therefore the number of passenger trains through the tunnel.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the only high-speed line we have in this country is the 70-mile line from London to the Channel Tunnel, which opened in 2007. In the meantime, countries all around the world have been developing high-speed rail, while we, under the previous Tory Government, simply cancelled two of the high-speed lines that were being prepared. First, can my noble friend at the very least protect the routes of the planned lines to the north-west and the north-east? Secondly, is it not time that this Government developed a strategy for high-speed rail, which is being done by so many comparable countries across the world?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to refer to the peremptory cancellation of phase 2a of HS2 by the previous Government. One of the first questions I answered in this House was from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, who asked me what the alternative was. The truth is that the previous Government cancelled phase 2a without regard to any alternative, and this Government have to devise what they will now do. We have an even more urgent job than that, because the present state of HS2 as a project is not where any of us would like it to be. It was neglected by the previous Government, so we have to fix that—which the new chief executive is in the course of doing—and we then have to persuade ourselves that investment in railways of this sort is good because it will allow us to manage them properly.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister reveals himself, in his answers, to be a great enthusiast for competition and open access on the HS1 line. Why then have eight of the last nine applications for new open access routes on the Network Rail services been turned down?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that those decisions, at least on open access, are currently made by the Office of Rail and Road. He also needs to note that the Government have not subsidised HS1, Eurostar or Getlink, unlike the national railway network, which receives billions of pounds in subsidy at the taxpayer’s expense. Therefore, when looking at open access applications, we have to consider the net effect of the railway subsidy for this country as a whole. He is also ignoring the fact that the Channel Tunnel is underused. The report to which my noble friend Lord Faulkner referred says that it is only half used by passengers and that only 10% of its possible freight capacity is used. That suggests that we should be enthusiastic about its greater use—unlike most of the national railway network, which is very nearly full. I referred to the question to me from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, about the west coast main line. There are very few paths and, consequently, we should be very careful in their allocation, especially to competing train services other than those franchised by the Government.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said about encouraging greater traffic through the Channel Tunnel, but what can be done to convince the north of England, Scotland and the more distant parts of the United Kingdom that this will not be of benefit just to London and the south-east? At the moment there is a tremendous growth of long-distance sleeper services on the continent. Could these not be encouraged by the Government?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. He will remember that the original idea was to have through services from the Midlands, the north, Scotland and the west of England, and sleeper services too, but they were discontinued before many of them started operating because the business case and the economics of them were quite weak. For the moment, we think the best thing we can do is to encourage a multiplicity of destinations with reasonable speed and frequency, which will generate traffic and encourage people to travel by train, even though they might need to change in London.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

Is my noble friend aware that a single goods train journey can remove 70 HGV journeys from the roads, and in some cases even more? That being the case, would not expanding the rail network—and that includes high-speed rail—free up capacity on the road network, therefore making the road network significantly safer?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that rail freight is extremely environmentally friendly; that is why this Government are spending a lot of time and effort to encourage rail freight. This includes setting a target for the new Great British Railways to increase the level of freight, but also remembering that freight needs its own space on the network for train paths. That refers back to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about open access and is another reason to be careful about allocating all the space on the railway to competing passenger operations.

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

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 March be approved.

Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I would first highlight that this debate deals with both the statutory instrument and the regret amendment laid by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and I will cover both in my remarks.

These draft regulations aim to support the transition to zero-emission vehicles, to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and to unlock economic growth on our journey to becoming a clean energy superpower. Businesses and families are choosing to make the switch to cleaner, greener vehicles that are cheaper to run and reduce noise and air pollution on our streets. The UK was the largest electric car market in Europe in 2024 and, so far this year, demand is up by over a third, according to industry figures. While demand for zero-emission vans is also increasing, this Government are determined to go further to give businesses and consumers the widest range of options, which is exactly what these regulations will do.

Zero-emission vehicles can be heavier than the equivalent petrol and diesel vehicles because of the weight of their battery or fuel. This can push them into a higher driving licence category than their petrol or diesel equivalents. Other than their weight, these vehicles are almost identical in size, design and payload to their petrol and diesel counterparts. Regulations to partially solve this problem were proposed by a previous Government and passed in 2018, allowing category B licence holders to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tonnes if they fulfilled additional requirements. “Alternatively fuelled” meant vehicles powered by electricity, hydrogen and gas. These requirements include five hours of additional training from an accredited instructor, driving only for the purpose of transporting goods and no ability to tow. E-fuels and other synthetic fuels were not included in this regulation, as they are no heavier than conventional petrol or diesel. However, with the rapid advancement of zero-emission technology since 2018, the existing regulations now represent an unnecessary barrier to switching to zero-emission vehicles.

This instrument will enable holders of a standard category B licence to drive a fully electric or hydrogen-powered vehicle up to a maximum weight of 4.25 tonnes without these additional requirements. Existing category B rules on ages and passenger numbers will apply. Category B licence holders can usually also drive minibuses weighing up to 3.5 tonnes, providing they fulfil some additional requirements, including the driver being over the age of 21. These requirements will also apply to zero-emission minibuses weighing up to 4.25 tonnes. These regulations also allow zero-emission vehicles up to 4.25 tonnes to tow a trailer, in line with rules currently in place for their petrol and diesel counterparts, provided that the total combined vehicle and trailer weight does not exceed 7 tonnes. To ensure that disabled people are not excluded from the benefits that the statutory instrument allows, an eligible zero-emission vehicle may weigh up to five tonnes if the extra weight is attributable to specialist equipment for the carriage of disabled passengers. This additional weight allowance also applies to minibuses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I was not making that point at all. I was saying that if the noble Lord’s ministerial car broke down at a roundabout and he was hit from behind by a 3.5 tonne vehicle and a colleague was hit by a 4.25 tonne vehicle, the latter would involve 20% more energy transfer and therefore 20% more potential for severity. Would he accept the simple physics of the argument? I am not suggesting that one is more likely to have an accident than the other.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly accept the simple physics. I am mostly not in the ministerial car; I am mostly on public transport. I accept his point, but the frequency of such collisions is so low that the Government are proposing to monitor what happens in the knowledge that, regarding that difference in weight, there were nine collisions involving these vehicles between 2020 and 2023, with six of them being slight. I accept completely the proposition of the physics, but not only is the real effect of this very small in terms of the total number of accidents but the Government are committing to monitor road accident data as it becomes available in order to know what will happen as a consequence of these changes. If something happens, then we will do something about it.

In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I certainly commit to saying what the incident thresholds will be. I will write to the noble Earl and put that in the Library.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the question of small electric cars. I admire his keenness to travel around the roads of Eastbourne in tuk-tuks—actually, I admire his being brave enough to travel around the roads of Eastbourne in any vehicle of that sort—but I do not think anybody has produced an electric tuk-tuk. There are several vehicles available as an alternative to large electric cars, including the Citroën Ami, Fiat Topolino and BMW i3. I can vouch for that one because I have one and I use it. It is a very small car. We do not need large electric cars; small electric cars are easily purchased.

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support for the statutory instrument generally. I have said that I will write to him about the thresholds we will use to decide whether accidents are material or not. I will also write to him about the timetable for safety guidance. On the dissemination of safety guidance, fortunately there are some strong trade associations for small and medium-sized commercial vehicles. We would take their advice, as we always do. I am familiar with them and they have been involved in these discussions.

On the noble Earl’s last point, on the applicability of this instrument in Northern Ireland, we will of course continue to discuss this with the Northern Ireland Government because it is important. I agree that it would be unsatisfactory for there to be inconsistency, without a similar measure in Northern Ireland, but it is for them to do it.

The instrument, although technical, represents a common-sense step that supports industry to make the switch to zero emissions and to decarbonise our road transport as we make progress towards net zero. It will cut transport costs for businesses, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and further accelerate our progress to becoming a clean energy superpower.

I hope I have reassured noble Lords that this instrument in no way disadvantages non-zero emission fuel types, so much as it levels the playing field between technologies. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, feels able to withdraw his regret amendment. I trust that noble Lords have found this debate informative and that they will join me in supporting this legislation.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for raising the interesting point about an electric tuk-tuk for passenger use. I listened with great care to the Minister’s response. I have to admit, a few years ago, I looked at the possibility of purchasing a BMW i3. The cost at that stage was £33,000. I do not know what the Minister paid for his. I do not think, however, that my noble friend Lord Lucas is thinking about a vehicle of that sort and that cost. That is one of the principal—

E-scooters: Insurance

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer to the Private Member’s Bill that I have before the House on road accident offences caused by bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters.

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

The Government regularly speak to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau and insurers as we develop our policy on e-scooters. This includes discussions about personal injury and property damage costs being covered by motorists, through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau’s uninsured drivers agreement, where an illegal e-scooter is at fault in a collision, ensuring that victims are fairly compensated. The e-scooters in the department’s rental trials, managed by the relevant local transport authorities, are covered by insurance.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will be aware that the cost that all motorists pay for the losses of all victims of uninsured vehicles, including illegal scooters, is £530 million. How do the Government intend to close this gap, where there is no insurance offered by the market for illegally operated e-scooters and other such vehicles?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is rightly persistent on this subject and, as she knows, I have offered to meet her on it. The previous Government commenced trials but did not develop or introduce legislation. We recognise the depth of public concern and are actively considering next steps. In the meantime, the vast majority of MIB claims related to e-scooters are of less than £50,000, so are likely to be a small proportion of the £530 million that she mentioned.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, e-scooters are incredibly quiet and therefore dangerous on pavements. What action are the Government taking to prevent e-scooters being used on pavements?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The use of e-scooters needs legislation to regulate it. This is a question which I have answered in the House before and which no doubt will continue to come up until we produce draft legislation. The issues are complex. Noble Lords will know that I have replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, putting in the Library a résumé of the legislation applying in all European countries, where there are vast differences in where you can use them, whether you should have a helmet, whether there is an age limit, whether they should be registered and whether they should be insured. We are working hard through those issues. They are not easy to solve, but the noble Baroness is right that determining what can be used on pavements and what is safe in a world where people with disabilities are, rightly, very worried about this, is very important.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, even when things are made legal, they can be abused. There must be enforcement. E-bikes are supposed to travel at a maximum of 15.5 miles per hour and not be throttled up to that speed. Yet around us all the time we see employees, in effect, of multinational companies delivering our groceries and our takeaways being exploited on illegal and uninsured vehicles. Will the Government take that into account when considering any regime for e-scooters?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The speed limit of 15.5 miles per hour determines the point at which an electric bicycle, capable of more speed than that, is a vehicle that needs to be licensed. The enforcement of the law is a matter for chief police officers, but we are considering what we can do in this area. I recognise as much as everybody else in this House that these alleged bicycles travelling at 25 or 30 miles per hour silently, and with the logos of quite major companies on the back of their riders’ rucksacks, represent a significant challenge to the legal use of the roads system.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct to ask the Question about illegal e-scooters, but, likewise, cyclists, who seem to have an ever-expanding space on our roads, do not pay road tax or insurance. Do the Government have any plans to look at that issue?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I do not recall whether the noble Baroness was one of the speakers in the debate that we had before Christmas on this subject. There are significant challenges with putting forward legislation about the licensing and insurance of bicycles. We want to encourage the safe and sensible use of bicycles, because active travel is good for the health of the nation. We will consider that further in the road safety strategy, but not to the extent that it deters people from cycling.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Government came to power promising to do better than their predecessor. There is a perfectly respectable libertarian argument, I suppose, that you should not have any regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes, and that, irrespective of product safety, they should be allowed to go where they want at whatever speed they want. People might want to make that argument. It seems to me that that is, in practice, now the Government’s position. There is no regulation, there has been no regulation for a long time, there is no regulation coming and there is very little enforcement. I pay credit to the police forces that do occasionally take enforcement. Will the Government just be honest and say that they are happy with that position and intend to let it run?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Well, I refer the noble Lord to my answer to a very similar question he asked me on 1 April. I said to him then that I did not much care to be lectured about drift by somebody who represents a party that did an experiment in 2021, published some results in 2022 and then did nothing, and that remains the case today.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, we currently have a perfect storm with e-scooters. There has already been reference to the fact that there is no need to register them, it is illegal to use them on public roads and pavements, and there is no registration when you buy the e-scooter either. Would the first step for this not be to ensure that, when somebody buys an e-scooter —because you are supposed to have a driver’s licence, provisional or full—they have to give their driving licence details, which would then be logged with that particular e-scooter?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I very much respect the noble Baroness’s view about the safety of these things, particularly from the point of view of anybody with a mobility difficulty or disability. But this is only one of the things that needs to be contemplated carefully in introducing legislation, simply because the legislation has to work in practice. We are learning some things from the controlled trials that the department has sponsored—the noble Baroness will know that the e-scooters concerned are identifiable in a way that those purchased from retailers are not. We also have to be realistic about what we can expect retailers to do in these circumstances. We are, as I said, deeply considering this. I know it is an issue of great concern to this House; it is the subject on which I have answered questions most frequently since I came here. We are working hard at it, but it is a difficult area and the rules we put in place have to have some chance of being enforced in a way that controls behaviour.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I fear that the Minister will have even more questions. I have just managed to secure an Oral Question on 10 June about exactly this issue. I wonder whether, in between, he would be interested in visiting the City of London cycle enforcement group, which has come up with some quite creative ways of getting people points on their driving licences. They are able to spot, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, mentioned, where vehicles have been adapted to exceed 15 miles per hour either by pressing a button that maintains the power consistently or merely by the size of the motor on these vehicles. It begs the question of why other forces are not able to have the same enforcement rigour that the City of London has managed. He might want to visit and see how the group is doing it.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am pleased to know that I shall have to answer further questions on this in June. In the meantime, I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has raised this issue. It is very important to publicise the good work of the City of London Police, and he is absolutely right that it is very encouraging to discover that, as a result of people riding what are in fact illegal motor vehicles, they can have their licence endorsed or, if they do not have one, the points will be put on it whenever they get one.

I will try to go to see them, but I know exactly what he is talking about. It is a great model and I would encourage other chief police officers—I hope that he, with his previous connections, will too—to go and witness it, and then do the same. We also know that these things are being used for crime of various sorts. In fact, the reason why the City of London Police is cracking down on it is mobile phone theft, in particular. It is a very effective enforcement methodology.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

My Lords, I will make a brief statement on legislative consent in relation to this Bill. The Government accept that legislative consent from the Senedd would be required for Clause 22(6)(b) and Clause 24(4) in their current form. The Government are considering options to ensure that the constitutional requirements for consent are met. This includes either amending the clauses to remove the provisions in question or by seeking consent. My expectation is that this issue will be addressed during the Bill’s passage in the other place.

A privilege amendment was made.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a great privilege to take this Bill through the House. I am grateful for the scrutiny, challenge and wisdom from all sides during the debates on this important legislation.

The Government are clear in their ambition to reform and improve transport for passengers. Better connectivity—and the bus is the predominant mode of public transport—delivers growth, jobs and housing, in line with this Government’s plan for change. Ensuring that local leaders have the powers they need to have the best bus service for their local areas and communities is a critical step.

Your Lordships’ input as the Bill has progressed through this House has meant that it leaves this place a better Bill than when it was introduced. I hope that, in turn, the Government have shown themselves willing to listen and able to work with your Lordships.

I move to thanks. First, I give my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Blake of Leeds, who has given me her guidance and supported me on the Front Bench. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I may not always agree with him—he seems to believe this Bill to be some sort of anti-enterprise activity, when it is not, and I must admit that I am still surprised by such a strong advocate of local authority independence over so many years having such a new-found desire for government intervention—but our engagement has been well-humoured and, more importantly, has given rise to some important issues that we have explored in your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, who has provided his views in his customary eloquent and courteous way.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, have all campaigned effectively to improve accessibility and highlight the importance of inclusive transport. This has resulted in the Government tabling a package of amendments and supporting those brought forward by my noble friend Lord Blunkett on Report. I am very grateful to my noble friend for his constructive and pragmatic approach to the issue of floating bus stops.

There have been other notable contributions. The noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw, Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, have provided wise words and, as ever, I am grateful for their contributions. I have enjoyed discussing the merits of bus safety with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who has raised issues of critical importance. As ever, the wise words of my noble friends Lord Snape, Lord Whitty and Lord Berkeley have added value, and I extend my thanks to them for sharing their counsel.

I particularly want to mention the late Baroness Randerson. I spoke in remembrance of her at this Dispatch Box at Second Reading, and I am sure I speak for others, as well as myself, in saying how sorry I am that someone who had such passion for and expertise in transport and such passionate support for this Bill was not here to lead her party in scrutiny of it. Thus, I am pleased that we were able to make the provision in the Bill on zero-emission buses even more comprehensive. I extend my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for stepping in for her party, and for our constructive and positive discussions through the Bill’s passage.

Finally, I extend personal thanks to all the officials who have supported me, especially the Bill team, legal colleagues, the drafting team in parliamentary counsel and everyone else—to name but a few of the many excellent people involved, I thank Nicola, Kenny, Jenny, Hamish and Saskia.

I look forward to following the Bill’s journey in the other place. I expect we will reignite some lively debates on its return to your Lordships’ House. With that said, I truly believe that this Bill is the most substantial and positive change in years for the bus network, passengers and the bus industry. This is the right way forward. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a privilege to lead the Lib Dem Benches on this important legislation, and somewhat daunting to have to follow at short notice our great friend Baroness Randerson and her work in the area of transport, specifically her passion for buses.

I believe the Bill is stronger for our detailed scrutiny and amendments, particularly on cleaner buses across England and the accessibility of the bus network as a whole. I thank the Minister and his Bill team for their genuine engagement at every stage of this legislation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his Back-Bench colleagues for their contributions, though sadly not always their support for our amendments. Likewise, I thank in particular the noble Lords, Lord Hampton, Lord Blunkett and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their contributions.

Particular thanks go to my noble friends Lady Pinnock, Lady Brinton, Lord Goddard and Lord Bradshaw for their strong support and contributions, and huge thanks go also to Adam Bull, our legislative support officer, who has supported our Benches every step of the way.

The Bill now moves to the other place, where I hope the wider issue of funding our bus services will be picked up in order that we can see the transformation of bus services across the country that we all desire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my voice to the many noble Lords who have thanked my noble friend the Minister. It is his first Bill. He is a real expert on buses and transport generally, and the House owes him a debt of gratitude for the way he has dealt with the Bill. We have made changes, as other noble Lords have said. It has been a very friendly and useful debate. The key thing is for us all to try to encourage more people to use the buses, whether that is in the countryside or in towns. That is the key; the Bill will go a long way to encouraging people to do that.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall of course be far more enthusiastic than the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on this excellent Bill. I expect it will be back, but this is the briefest of replies. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the floating bus stop issue, my honourable friend the Minister for Local Transport is, in colloquial terms, “on it”, and I will write to the noble Lord about how far he has got following this session.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Cambridge South Station: Car Parking

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have had discussions with Network Rail about the provision of car parking spaces at the new Cambridge South station.

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

My Lords, the answer, at least recently, is none. From the first design of Cambridge South in 2016 by AstraZeneca, the station has never had a car park due to lack of space. It has been designed as a sustainable transport hub to provide direct access to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus while respecting the surrounding green belt. The station will have 1,000 cycle spaces, pedestrian access and strong connections to local transport networks, including nearby park-and-ride sites.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and point out that, as he says, this is next to the medical campus, which is an ever-expanding area with an ever-expanding need for transport. At the moment, there appears to be no parking provision for disabled people and, despite a multiplicity of local authority involvements, there is still a lot of frustration locally that, apparently, we are going to have a station without any car park. Can the Minister look yet again —I do not blame him, because this problem has been there for years—at calling the different parties together to see whether a more acceptable solution can be found?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord, first, that there will be disabled car parking spaces, and, secondly, that the Cambridge Biomedical Campus executive director said, and stands by this today:

“Currently, there are around five times as many visits to the site as there are car parking spaces. We have to find ways of making it easier for the thousands of staff, NHS patients and visitors arriving daily to get here without needing to use a car”.


In addition, the green belt adjacent to the site of the new station is Hobson’s Park and the planning inspector who conducted the inquiry said that, in the event that the design had taken in space in the park for car parking, it is highly unlikely that the station would have received planning permission at all.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee in its seventh carbon budget that, by 2040, all diesel freight and passenger trains should be phased out? If he does agree, could he confirm that east-west rail, which is due to be completed in the mid to late 2030s, will not run any diesel-powered passenger or freight trains?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The length of life of railway rolling stock is between 30 and 35 years, so proposed dates for the elimination of diesel and other forms of traction have to respect the economic lives of the rolling stock that is currently running on the railway. In respect of east-west rail, the non-statutory consultation which has currently gone out is proposing discontinuous electrification, so that the rolling stock to be operated on the east-west railway when it opens would be a combination of electric traction and battery operation.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

While the new station at Cambridge South is welcome, there are some concerns about the layout for passengers using the station, particularly around buses, as the bus stop is some distance from the station entrance. Will the Minister commit to review how the layout is working once operational and agree to make any adjustments to improve the passenger experience?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I respect the noble Baroness’s views—she has had a more detailed view of the design of the station than I have—but that will alter as a consequence of her question. I thought I might have got away from that sort of thing after my last job. But, of course, it will be reviewed, because if you have no car parking, access via public transport is completely essential.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, and, of course, Cambridge South Station is in my former constituency. Does the Minister agree that the object is that Cambridge Biomedical Campus is a major destination, we want people to get there by public transport and we want to reduce traffic congestion in south Cambridge and not see it increase with cars trying to park at the station? What is key is to continue the investment in sustainable transport in south Cambridgeshire. To that effect, will the Government look at approving the second gateway review for the Greater Cambridge Partnership for projects such as the Cambridgeshire south-west and the Cambridgeshire south-east travel hubs?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly agree with the noble Lord that good public transport is vital for a growing, developing city such as Cambridge. But, of course, he will not expect me to endorse any particular use of public money in advance of the current spending review.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend raised a very interesting question about Cambridge South, which is more Hobson’s choice than Hobson’s Park as far as motorists are concerned, but there is a general question about railway stations around the country. In York, the long-stay car park is now closed permanently. It is more and more difficult for people to have access to collect passengers from trains—or, indeed, to travel. Would the Minister comment on the general approach that we should take about getting a proper balance between those who travel by rail and those who travel to rail by car?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord that access to the station is just as important as railway travel from the station. In respect of existing stations, the Office of Rail and Road has specific powers to protect car parking space. I know a little bit about the situation in York, where the previous long-stay car parking will be replaced by new long-stay car parking. The noble Lord will also know that there is a development outside the station to make all interchange easier at the station for all passengers who want to use trains.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, in his initial response, my noble friend mentioned the relationship between Cambridge South and the local park-and-ride facilities. As somebody who once used those park-and-ride facilities frequently and found them very effective, perhaps I might ask: what are the links between the nearest park-and-ride facility and the new station, and how are they maintained?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I clearly should have gone to the site in preparation for this Question. The station will be adjacent to the Cambridgeshire guided busway, which is the one that gives access to two nearby park-and-ride sites, so I think this has been quite carefully thought through by the combined authority, by the City of Cambridge Council and by the Greater Cambridge Partnership.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is all a bit of a shambles, really, is it not? It is perfectly obvious from what the Minister is saying that a great deal of buck-passing is going on between too many different authorities having their say and nobody being able to agree, which makes me think that he should be saying yes to the question from my noble friend Lord Balfe when he asks, “Will you pull things together, actually take an interest in this and get everybody around a table?”

I have a brief question following up on what my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said, which is that the Government go on a great deal—very correctly—about the importance of intermodal transfer at transport hubs. Is the Minister effectively saying that the private motor car is no longer a mode that should be taken into account in intermodal transfer policy?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Much though I respect the noble Lord, almost everything he has just said is wrong. There has been a remarkable consistency of view among all the partners about Cambridge South, from the combined authority, which used to have a Conservative mayor and currently has a Labour mayor, from the Greater Cambridge Partnership, from the City of Cambridge itself, and from the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, AstraZeneca and the other big employers represented on it. They all agreed that a station without a car park was what was both feasible and wanted. There has been no dissent from that. The only dissent recently has been in the media, and it does not respect the fact that providing a car park would be impossible. I also say to the noble Lord that this is an exception, and I think I just answered the question by saying that, in respect of existing stations, the Office of Rail and Road has a responsibility to ensure that there is always station car parking space respected, even when the proposal is to develop public land and replace it in such a fashion.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, my name is Lord Moylan and I am the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman—yay.

The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, knows that I have the highest personal regard for him, as I do for my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. They both bring a perspective on this issue which I cannot share and do not possess. However, I do know something, from past experience, about the design and management of roads.

The essential problem is, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that there are locations where road space is a scarce resource. The way in which we choose to deal with this is by a sort of top-down allocation of uses, so that we say, “This is for the pedestrian, this is for buses, this is for bicycles, and this is for general traffic”. Inevitably, people are left dissatisfied, because these are almost insoluble decisions to make. They are a mixture of managerial and political decisions, and they are fundamentally questions of priority, and those priorities shift over time.

What has certainly been the case is that, in recent years, the priority has shifted substantially in favour of the cyclist. I think that the mood in the House today is that perhaps it is time to look again at the priority that should be given to pedestrians, and particularly to disabled pedestrians. For that reason, I will say that, while we do not object to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, if my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond chooses to test the opinion of the House on his Amendments 36 and 38, we will support him.

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

My Lords, as the Minister, I will turn to the amendments related to floating bus stops and accessibility. I thank noble Lords for their contributions on these important points. I recognise the passion and sincerity of all those who have spoken. I say clearly that the Government acknowledge the problems that floating bus stops can cause. We recognise that this is about equality and the ability to make independent journeys confidently. It is also about safety, including, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, have referred to, the safety of cyclists. It is also, as the noble Lord, Moylan, just said, about the allocation of road space, which in many English towns and cities is at a premium.

We also recognise that more needs to be done to make these installations accessible to all, which is why the department is working—at pace, for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon—with Active Travel England and Transport for London to provide further guidance and undertake research to fill the gaps in our knowledge and evidence base. Since Committee, we have been exploring ways in which we can strengthen this commitment, and we have listened very carefully to noble Lords’ and other stakeholders’ concerns.

First, in the short term, we have decided to instigate a pause on the installation of the most problematic floating bus stop designs. These are the ones with shared-use bus borders, where the cycle track runs across the front of the bus stop, between the stop and/or shelter and the kerb. Noble Lords have referred to a number of stops in this respect, and I will refer to bus stop U on Brentford High Street, near the piano museum, where bus passengers get on and off directly into a cycle lane. The pause will be voluntary, as there are no powers enabling the Secretary of State to instruct local authorities on this. It will apply to any new installations currently at the design stage, which local authorities will be requested not to take forward. This does not require legislation, and the Secretary of State will set out expectations on this to local authorities as expeditiously as possible.

With regard to future modifications to existing sites, we will highlight to local authorities that existing funding is available to them to make these changes. Options include consolidated active travel funding and highways maintenance funding, and Ministers will encourage them to use this. Active Travel England will also be making available further funding to local authorities to enable them to retrofit existing sites on their network.

Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, is similar to Amendment 39A tabled by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, in that it requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance on this matter. However, my noble friend has gone further in his amendment and stated that this guidance has to be in place within three months after Royal Assent. I fully support him on this matter: it is important that guidance is developed quickly to help solve this issue, and I know that partially sighted, blind and disabled bus passengers will appreciate action being taken quickly. This guidance will be better than local transport note 1/20, to which the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, referred, because that is non-statutory, and it will answer my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s point about a proper study.

Amendment 39A also makes provision for consultation and includes the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee as a statutory consultee. I agree that this is the right thing to do. I agree that any consultation on this guidance will also include other bodies of, or representing, blind and partially sighted people, and, more generally, disabled people, older people and those with additional needs. They are experts, as users of the network, and we want to be sure that they have had an opportunity to provide their views. Amendment 61A is a technical amendment that ensures that the new clause proposed in Amendment 39A comes into force as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

40: Clause 27, page 27, line 31, leave out “possible” and insert “safe to do so”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that the training will require a person to take steps to prevent crime or anti-social behaviour only where it is safe to do so.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this next group of amendments relate to Clause 27, on training for staff about crime and anti-social behaviour.

On Amendment 40 under my name, I thank noble Lords who in Committee highlighted the need for clarity on how new requirements could impact the safety of drivers and front-line staff. I know we all agree that the safety of everyone on the transport network is important, and this includes both passengers and staff. This amendment seeks to make particularly clear the importance of the safety of staff when preventing incidents relating to crime and anti-social behaviour.

It is important that staff are trained to assess whether it is safe for them to prevent such incidents but, to be absolutely clear, staff are not expected to physically intervene in incidents which should be dealt with by enforcement authorities, such as the police. I have previously stated that we are not expecting bus drivers to leave their cab in order to prevent incidents of crime and anti-social behaviour. This is not appropriate and may put the driver at risk. However, drivers and other staff should be equipped to intervene in other ways, such as through understanding what to say to de-escalate a situation where it is safe to do so. Therefore, this amendment makes it clear that the training requirement is to assist staff in taking preventative steps only where it is safe to do so.

As I have stated before, the intention has always been to involve relevant stakeholders in the development of guidance which sets out the requirements of training on crime and anti-social behaviour, and the Government remain committed to doing so. I hope noble Lords will accept this amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to see the amendment in the name of the Minister. I pointed out at Second Reading, and again in Committee, that the drafting of Clause 27 was, frankly, absurd, dangerous and misleading, in that it raised public expectations about what drivers are able to do in handling crime and anti-social behaviour that were completely unrealistic and unfair to the drivers. I have an amendment in this group which elegantly and beautifully addresses the matter; the Minister’s is more brutal, but it does the job, so I welcome it.

There is a further amendment in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. Unfortunately, he is not in his place to speak to it, but the suggestion that trade unions should be consulted about the content of training overall seems to me unobjectionable, so I am sad not to see him here in his place.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I turn to my noble friend Lord Woodley’s Amendment 41. I appreciate that the intention of his amendment is to ensure that the views of bus workers are considered when developing the training that they are required to take. I agree that this is important, but I am not convinced that placing a requirement on individual public service vehicle operators to consult trade unions before preparing training to be undertaken by their employees is the best way to go about it. This would place an undue burden on operators and likely delay the implementation of training, while resulting in inconsistency in staff capability and service provision, which is in the interests of neither bus workers nor passengers. I have already explained that we will involve relevant stakeholders in the development of guidance covering training. This includes ensuring that the views of bus staff and their representatives are fully considered. We remain committed to this and believe that we can set clear and realistic direction about what the training should entail and the expected outcomes.

The final amendment in this group is Amendment 42. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his amendment —I am not sure that I should thank him so much for regarding my own as brutal, but his amendment is clear. I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group and hope that the House accepts the amendment tabled in my name, which is intended to clarify the policy intention of Clause 27.

Amendment 40 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

43: Clause 27, page 28, line 7, at end insert—
“(3A) Where regulations made under this section impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(3B) In subsection (3A) “the data protection legislation”, “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that regulations requiring holders of PSV operators’ licences to keep records relating to their compliance with the training requirement do not operate in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

44: Clause 29, page 29, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Where regulations made under this section impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that regulations requiring carriers and terminal managing bodies to keep records relating to their compliance with the disability training requirements do not operate in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

46: Clause 30, page 30, line 21, leave out from “a” to “may” in line 23 and insert “service that falls within subsection (1A)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendments of clause 30 at page 30 line 24 (first amendment) and page 31 lines 10 and 11, provides for the requirement to use zero emission buses to apply to the local services in England set out in my second amendment at page 30 line 24.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

These amendments cover provisions relating to zero-emission buses. Those tabled in my name—Amendments 46 to 49—amend Clause 30, which will prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses on local bus services, from a date not before 1 January 2030. I would like to attribute these amendments to the late Baroness Randerson, who worked tirelessly to ensure that the environmental benefits of bus services are fully realised; she continued, quite rightly, to push consecutive Governments to do more. They also address issues raised eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in Committee.

Amendment 47 widens the scope of the current drafting to include all local services run under franchise schemes and local services in London. Therefore, all registered and franchised services, which includes those that are commercial, tendered or operated by local authority bus companies, are captured by the measure. This amendment will enable the carbon-saving and air-quality benefits afforded by the transition to a zero-emission fleet to be fully maximised. It will ensure that all areas of England are included and that the benefits of the transition to a zero-emission fleet are felt nationwide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have now sat down.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Noble Lords might like to note that I was driving a Leyland bus last Saturday on Route 19. The vehicle is older than I am. It makes a lot of noise but it does not go very fast.

I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her remarks on this subject and for noting the work of the late Baroness Randerson on this. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked directly about supporting UK manufacturing. My colleague in the other place, Minister Lightwood, recently chaired the inaugural meeting of the bus manufacturing panel on zero-emission buses. The Government are focused on delivering on their promise to bring jobs and investment into Britain’s industrial heartlands by boosting bus manufacturing through investment in zero-emission buses, while also driving up passenger comfort and service reliability. The scale of this technological ambition, combined with the highly skilled manufacturers across the UK, will ensure that the economic benefits of net zero are felt by workers across the country, including those building and using buses.

It is estimated that over 60% of zero-emission bus regional area-supported buses—the acronym is ZEBRA, but I am blowed if I am going to use it—will be procured from UK-based bus manufacturers, supporting economic growth and jobs across the zero-carbon transport industry. We want to see UK-based bus manufacturers build on this foundation and stimulate innovation and skills development to ensure that UK- based manufacturers are able to compete with high-quality, affordable products.

The UK’s continuing membership of the government procurement agreement prevents the department requiring that grant funding should be used to procure British-built zero-emission buses. The UK Government have no role in the procurement of buses, because that is the responsibility of the bus operators and/or local transport authorities and local authority bus companies.

The department is not able to require bidders to design their procurement processes in a way that would explicitly favour UK bus manufacturers. We are, however, exploring whether there are any relevant factors that we can build into this requirement, which may help to encourage competitive bids from UK firms without compromising wider commercial outcomes and delivery.

The supply chain for zero-emission buses is global, with UK bus manufacturing sourcing key components, such as vehicle batteries, from foreign-based companies. Those companies are therefore expected to continue to play an important role in the supply of zero-emission buses for the UK market, both through supplying key components and on occasion exporting complete vehicles directly to the UK market.

We have seen no evidence that foreign bus manufacturers are undercutting UK bus manufacturers. Recent evidence suggests the contrary—that UK bus manufacturers are not being undercut, with prices being broadly comparable. When zero-emission bus regional area orders have gone to international bus manufacturers, local transport authorities and bus operators have indicated that those decisions have been based on build quality and timeliness, rather than price. International manufacturers win some orders, just as UK manufacturers are winning orders abroad, from Germany to Hong Kong. A healthy and competitive global market is a positive thing, driving up performance and quality and driving down cost.

I hope that that puts the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at rest about the Government’s intentions in respect of British zero-emission bus manufacturing. I shall not speak further, other than to welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, on Amendment 51. I hope that your Lordships will welcome my other amendments for zero-emission buses and accept the need for all my amendments.

Amendment 46 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

47: Clause 30, page 30, line 24, leave out “that area” and insert “England”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement for my amendment at clause 30, page 30, line 21.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am ever grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Snape—if only, on this occasion, for reminding the House that bus fares went down under the Conservative Administration, ending with £2 as the maximum fare cap.

I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, seeks to call our good faith into question. My concern about her amendment is not that she wants to continue to promote this excellent Conservative policy, which we would have implemented had we been elected; it is with its practicalities. It is a pity that there is not a proper opportunity to interrogate it now, but I find the notion of a voluntary £2 fare cap appearing in statute very strange, especially on an unfunded basis. However, I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say about it.

I will briefly speak to my Amendment 59 before turning to other amendments. I do not intend—if noble Lords will forgive me—to address every amendment in the group, partly in the interests of time; I hope that is not rude of me. My Amendment 59 concerns the fact that last year Louise Haigh, the then Secretary of State for Transport—in, I think, her very last official action before she sank into political oblivion—announced bus funding for the country, to which the Minister has referred a number of times since. Three-quarters of that funding was given to local transport authorities on the basis of a completely new formula, which had never been consulted on and which nobody had been given any advance notice of.

When I protested about this at the time and asked for an explanation of or rationale for the formula—because distribution formulae are very important—the Minister said:

“The Government are entitled to make decisions about how they wish to spend money”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 127.]


That was the substance of his answer. That proposition is broadly true: we often ask whether the Government will spend, for example, more money on defence or welfare, or less on aid or transport. They are the big issues that the Government are elected to make decisions about. However, when it comes to the distribution of money to other public authorities—those pots having been decided—two other considerations need to be taken into account. The first is—although I am not attributing this to the Government—the possibility that formulae are manipulated to favour certain local authorities over others; the second is a simple obligation of fairness to local authorities that they understand how their funding is being calculated and how they are being rewarded.

My amendment seeks to require the Government to set out, in the near future, not only a formula but a rationale for the bus funding distribution, including some notice of its distributional effects as well as the alternatives that they may have considered. This would contribute greatly to good government and transparency. I do not propose to divide the House on the amendment, but I hope that it would have had support, because it would have acted as a very good example to many other departments.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Buses are dangerous. Somebody told me a statistic 20 years ago—it is one of those statistics that does not appear in regular series—that was so astonishing that I had to ensure that it was robust. It stated that, at least in London, 50% of women aged over 65 presenting at A&E had suffered an injury inside a bus. The reason is straightforward: if you are inside a bus with modern brakes and the brakes are applied, one can be thrown about the bus, including when going to a seat, coming from a seat or simply standing—many of us, I think, will have had this experience, although not all of us will have fallen over. Because those responsible for health and safety have made brakes sharper and more effective, as that would appear to make the bus safer, there is not always consideration for what happens to the people inside. That needs to be looked at.

It is also true that buses cause injuries to people outside. They sometimes have large mirrors that stick out. Have people thought properly about that?

I had some involvement in the construction industry—not directly, but in a non-executive capacity under various roles—and I was struck by the complete transformation that has taken place in that industry over the past 20 or 25 years. Some 30 years ago, it was expected that people would lose their lives on building sites or that they would suffer life-changing injuries, but a determination on the part of the industry to change that—to have a vision zero—means that, nowadays, a death or serious injury on a construction site is not only very rare but shocking and pored over, and people try to learn lessons from it. That attitude, which is what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, wishes to bring to the bus industry, is commendable. It perhaps requires a change in mindset—there are examples; the noble Lord drew attention to the Mayor of London’s activities—and it should be a national programme. If he wishes to divide the House on his amendment, the Conservative group will support him.

Closely related to that is Amendment 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. I am very disappointed that the noble Lord, for whom I have a high regard, is not in his place and has not been able to speak to his amendment. Colleagues on my Benches have spoken very clearly about the importance of safety, not in the sense of being shaken around in a bus by the brakes but in relation to the threats, particularly to women and girls, of violent assault or intimidation on public transport—or, more specifically for today’s debate, on buses. Clearly, the recording of data to support responses to that should be mandatory and taken forward in the way suggested by the noble Lord’s amendment. That too is an amendment that, if he were here to press it, we would have supported—and we still will, in principle, if there are some means by which it could be voted on.

Finally, I turn to an amendment not in this group but debated earlier, which will be called shortly. Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, relates to an audit or review of bus services to villages. When it was debated, I said very clearly from this Dispatch Box—and I am very happy to say it again—that the Conservative Party is the party of villages. If the noble Baroness chose to divide the House on her amendment, there can be no question but that, on this occasion at least, the Conservative Party would stand solidly with her and follow her through the Lobby.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this final set of amendments covers a range of bus policy issues. I will first address Amendment 52,which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme.

The Government want everybody who needs it to have access to public transport and are committed to improving the system so that it is more inclusive and enables disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. In England, the English national concessionary travel scheme costs around £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations—such as the hours in which the pass can be used being extended—would therefore need to be very carefully considered. Local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations. For example, we have seen this in London, where individuals aged 60 and over are eligible for the 60-plus Oyster card, which entitles them to free travel on a number of services. Similar schemes exist in other parts of the country, where local authorities have chosen to provide specific support to their communities through offers that go beyond their statutory obligations. A review of the English national concessionary travel scheme concluded in 2024, which included an assessment of the travel time of the scheme. We are currently considering the next steps on this. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 54 would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of making bus travel free for children. The Government remain committed to exploring targeted solutions that deliver value for money for taxpayers, while ensuring affordable bus travel for those who need it most, particularly young people. Bus operators can choose to offer concessions to children and young people. For example, in the year ending March 2025, youth concessions were offered by at least one commercial bus operator in 73 out of 85 local authority areas in England outside London. Local authorities have powers to introduce concessions or discounts for young people. We want bus fares to be affordable. That is why we are funding a £3 bus fare cap until the end of 2025. We continue to keep the affordability of bus travel under review. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

On Amendment 55, I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for raising the idea of a national bus forum. I understand what my noble friend is seeking to achieve through this amendment. However, I assure him that my department actively engages with all stakeholders and has conducted extensive engagement in developing the proposals before your Lordship’s House today. The Government recognise the importance of working with stakeholders to ensure that bus services across the country serve the passengers and communities that rely on them. They understand that engagement with local authorities, bus operators, trade unions and community groups—to name but a few groups—is imperative to delivering the best outcomes. I assure my noble friend Lord Woodley that conversations with these groups will continue beyond the Bill. This is just one stop on the journey to better buses, and the department will use its convening power to bring stake- holders together in the interests of passengers, local areas and the industry. I therefore do not consider it necessary to establish a statutory body to duplicate work that the department has already undertaken.

Amendment 56, tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley, seeks to place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing the impact of the Bill’s provision on the ability of the Government to introduce collective bargaining for the local bus sector nationwide. I have explained that this Bill does not mandate a single bus operating model, and it will be for local leaders to decide what model is right for their area. These changes will not happen overnight. It will likely take up to five years for local transport authorities to franchise or set up a local authority bus company. Six months, as suggested in my noble friend’s amendment, is clearly too short a period of time to assess the Bill’s impact. The Bill is about empowering local areas. They will be best placed to engage with local stakeholders, including trade unions, as they work together to provide the best services for their communities.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

62: The Schedule, page 35, line 35, at end insert—
“(da) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consult disabled persons, or organisations representative of disabled persons, before adding an area to the area to which the franchising scheme relates.

RHS Garden Wisley: Roadworks

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, draw attention to my non-financial interest as a vice-president of the Royal Horticultural Society, RHS.

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

My Lords, the impact of the M25 junction 10 scheme on RHS Garden Wisley was considered from the project’s early stages in 2016. National Highways incorporated mitigation measures where possible and has considered major planned events at Wisley in its plans. Major weekend closures were scheduled to avoid conflicts with key events and extensive signage was installed to guide visitors through the works along the most direct and convenient routes.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The RHS Garden Wisley is a centre of excellence for horticultural science. It provides a green lifeline to over 30,000 schools, 5,500 community groups and 25 NHS trusts. This work relies on visitor income, but the ongoing M25 A3 roadworks have caused visitor numbers to fall dramatically by 25%. So I ask the Minister: what commitments can the Government give to ensure the RHS can continue its vital work by supporting the ability of environmental charities such as the RHS to deliver public benefit? Will the Minister agree to meet me and the RHS to discuss the long-term impact of the roadworks and ensure that this charity can continue to thrive?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

To answer the last part of the question first, I would be delighted to meet the noble Baroness. It would be a pleasure to talk to her and the Government. I talked this morning to my noble friend Lady Hayman about the RHS and the importance of the work that it does and we recognise the important part the garden plays. So I would be pleased to meet her.

The Government are not able to use taxpayers’ money for direct compensation, but there are two further issues. One is that there is some land-take, which RHS Wisley has a claim for and could—and should—pursue. The other is that there may be other ways of helping the gardens recover from this event. Of course, the benefit of the highway scheme will be to make access permanently better, because the old junction was congested for years. I would be delighted to meet the noble Baroness, with National Highways and the contractors, to see what else we can do that is legitimate and will help the gardens in their very brilliant work.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, as one who opposed the original plans before they were ever put into practice, I feel very angry that the views of the RHS and of any of us who felt the same were not taken into account. As a result, the RHS has lost no less than £6 million because of visitor decline and, by the time these roadworks are finished, it will be £11 million. Will the Minister elaborate on what possible measures might be taken to recompense the RHS, including perhaps in the longer term having a better compensation scheme for National Highways, which has a scheme that is ill-suited to a charity such as the RHS?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The questions about compensation schemes are obviously about the wisdom and appropriate use of taxpayers’ money. I cannot answer for the design of the original scheme, because it is nearly 10 years old. But, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I am very happy to sit down with the RHS, National Highways and the contractors to see what else we can do, in particular as regards a better future for visitors, more visibility of the gardens and more signage and so forth, when the works are completed.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, all these issues are about the past. Can the Minister remind us who was in charge in the past? It seems that Ministers made no decisions on all these matters and it sounds as though they were getting their money under false pretences.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

That is an easy answer, is it not? It was the previous Government, not this one.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, although I acknowledge the initial response, does the Minister agree that the existing methods used by National Highways to assess the impact that roadworks have on charities such as the RHS are in need of a review, and will he request such a review?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am not sure whether the procedures are appropriate, but I will go away and get the department to look at them in order to see whether they are appropriate.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, the RHS is clearly very well represented in this place, and rightly so, but perhaps I might put in a good word for rural communities, and businesses in rural communities where you have road and lane closures. The public and business see these roads that are closed, but there is no indication of when they will reopen and, although the roads are closed, there is no work or activity being done during the road closure. So I have a suggestion. When the local authority planning department or the highways department closes the road, it could put an indication of when the work will be completed and, if it cannot do that, it could give a telephone number that the public could phone to find out why not.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will not go down the cones hotline route—that did not seem to be a tremendous success. That point is well made. It is a continued frustration for drivers of all sorts that apparently unattended road works last for so long. The power to levy lane rental was started in London and it is rolling out. That is a way in which local authorities can put pressure because, frankly, they are not usually highway works but utility works, and the number of utility works that are left open for a long time is legion. So there is a point there and lane rental is one of the solutions to it.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I live down the A3, so I use junction 10 quite frequently. Can the Minister confirm that we have seen the last full weekend closure of that junction?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

This is a new version of doing travel information in the House. I believe that there is a closure in April. The noble Lord probably knows where Painshill is better than I do. Then there are planned to be four more, one on the M25 and three on the A3, and that will be it, so far as I understand.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I understand—perhaps the noble Lord could confirm this—that the works are due to continue until the middle of 2026. Is that the case? Returning to the Royal Horticultural Society, what assessment has his department made of the effect on the long-term sustainability of the gardens after such damage to their visitor numbers?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The works on the M25 will continue until this autumn. I believe the works on the A3 will continue into 2026, and they have been delayed by bad weather. I am sure that, if the noble Lord asks hard enough, he will discover whether his colleagues in the previous Government did that assessment about the RHS. We inherited this scheme. The best thing that we can do is to finish it. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I will meet her and the RHS with the contractors and National Highways to see what else we can do for the future of what is a much-prized and very valuable institution—which I go to quite often, despite the roadworks.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Highways Agency, as the client, has a major responsibility for ensuring that roadworks are undertaken as quickly as possible? The massive level of disruption on our national highway network affects individual drivers, but also commerce travelling around the country. What is it going to do about improving the performance of the contractors and ensuring much shorter times of works on these roads?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right that it is very important to do them quickly. In recent years, the safety of highway maintenance workers has been much considered, because it has hitherto been a very dangerous occupation. Therefore, some of the works last longer because they are better protected for safety. I cannot believe that this House would not sympathise with that aim, but I agree with my noble friend that it is incumbent on National Highways, which manages the works, to deliver them as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about lane rental being rolled out. It has been being rolled out for the last 20 years, has it not? When will it actually going to operate?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will be very happy to write to the noble Baroness and tell her exactly what the position with lane rental is. It is complex and needs administration, but the intention is to force particular utilities to do their work in an effective and timely way.