Heathrow Airport: Third Runway

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

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

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

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 Proposals will not be published by the department, in accordance with the Secretary of State’s letter of 30 June to potential promoters, though some have independently released details of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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Bird (CB)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords—oh, I am sorry.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness could answer.

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

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

“Britain wants to fly”.

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

Drink-Drive Limit

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

Open Access Rail Services

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Snape]

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

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

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

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

International Maritime Organization: Net-Zero Framework

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mountevans]

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

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

I am here again.

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

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

Great British Railways: Rolling Stock

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon]

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

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

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

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

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

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hintze (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

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

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

Motion agreed.

Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, noble Lords will wish to know that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered a draft of the order before it was laid and then gave informal pre-laying approval. After the draft order was laid on 16 July, it was formally cleared by the Joint Committee. Likewise, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee formally cleared the draft order. The committee raised no specific concerns about this instrument, although it noted it as an instrument of interest, the reasons for which will be addressed later in my speech. Prior to this, the department had responded to preliminary inquiries from the committee’s clerk to the satisfaction of the committee.

This instrument amends existing aviation safety regulations to update and rationalise requirements for the maintenance and repair of aircraft, and to clarify the Civil Aviation Authority’s powers of delegation. These amendments ensure that UK law remains clear and proportionate.

I will start by providing some background information about these regulations. UK airspace and airlines are among the safest in the world. Even with this success, we are not complacent, and the Government are committed to maintaining and improving the high safety standards in aviation. The UK is therefore committed to ensuring that technical requirements remain up to date, and in line with international standards and best practice set by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The Civil Aviation Authority is the UK’s independent safety regulator, responsible for advising the Government on amendments to technical aviation safety requirements and regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for attending the debate and for their input. I listened intently to the highly experienced noble Baroness, Lady Foster. She raised a valuable point about the minute parts that might cause a serious failure. I recall the example used, albeit not as a practitioner. The answer to that is that type certificate holders will have a design process in place to establish the potential failure impact of every part, and that design process has to be established by the CAA as adequate. Any potential failure must be shown to have a negligible effect on the functioning of the aircraft. The screw that the noble Baroness referred to, part of the assembly of a windscreen, would be considered within the design process so that it would not be excluded from form 1 if the design process for the more major component was safety critical. You could not exclude the screws and still have the windscreen assembly—that is the practical answer to that question.

The noble Baroness asked who the CAA will delegate to. I cannot give her the names of the third parties, but the CAA has set out stringent requirements for third parties to be qualified entities. Qualified entities will be subject to an audit regime to ensure continuing compliance with the CAA’s requirements. They will clearly need sufficient subject matter expertise and regulation capacity, and the CAA will accredit and monitor their performance to ensure continuing safety. The CAA has to set out in detail how it intends to assess the competence of qualified entities for drone flightworthiness, assessment and training. It has experience of doing that in respect of how it dealt with the pilots of fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, so we are entitled to conclude that those processes are robust.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, referred to the delegation of powers. The criteria are more or less what I have just said, but if there is any omission from the explanation that I should have given as a consequence of his question, I will write forthwith. As for the testing of adequate resources for the Civil Aviation Authority, I believe that it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the resources are adequate and that it has adequate resources to pay the agencies to which this work should be delegated. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I will write to the noble Lord and confirm that that is the case in respect of this element of these regulations.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, rightly asked whether the department, and I as the Minister proposing these regulations, take responsibility for them and for the proposal to delegate. The answer to that is, of course, yes. The department should not propose such regulations without feeling confident that it is competent to propose them and that what it is proposing is the right thing to do.

I believe that I have answered all the points raised. I conclude by saying again that the safety of aviation and of the travelling public is a priority for the Government. My department is committed to ensuring that aviation remains safe. The draft regulations form part of an important legislative programme which implements proportionate best practice in aviation safety regulation. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

When I referred to the screws, the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out that we were looking at the design, et cetera, which makes sure that it is a bona fide part. The air accident that took place was not because the screws themselves were badly designed, or that they failed because of what they were, it was when they were fitted—it was the incorrect component. There is a differentiation here between something failing because of a design fault and something failing because the incorrect component has been fitted into a specific, probably critical, area of an aircraft. Could I just leave that with the noble Lord? I thank him.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am very happy that the noble Baroness leaves it with me. I will make sure that I write to her. I recognise the issue that we are dealing with—the incorrect fitment of correct components.

Motion agreed.

National Policy Statement for Ports

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the initial proposal for an amended National Policy Statement for Ports.

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

My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate. National policy statements set out the primary legal framework for planning decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, with the Planning Inspectorate providing the examining authority. In the case of ports, they will normally also incorporate a deemed marine licence, on advice from the Marine Management Organisation.

In July 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a review of relevant national policy statements to provide greater clarity for applicants and decision-makers. In the case of ports, a review had already been announced under the previous Administration, and this Government agreed that the review was indeed justified according to the criteria in Section 6 of the Planning Act 2008. The extant National Policy Statement for Ports was designated in 2012, and a great deal has happened institutionally, empirically and policy-wise since then.

The National Policy Statement for Ports initially applied to the whole of England and Wales, but following the Wales Act 2017 it now applies only to England—plus Milford Haven, which is a reserved trust port as defined in the Act. Nevertheless, we have sought to make sure that the national policy statement will continue to take full account of institutional and regulatory differences in Wales, where relevant.

The initial proposed revised national policy statement for ports was laid in Parliament on 4 June 2025 and published for public consultation, alongside an appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulations assessment. When I refer to the national policy statement for ports from now on, I will mean this initial proposed revised version unless the context indicates otherwise.

In parallel with this publication, the department issued revised port freight demand forecasts for the whole of the United Kingdom, and these forecasts are quoted in the revised national policy statement for ports. The forecasts, very briefly, predict substantial demand-driven growth in unit load traffic—in roll-on roll-off and containers primarily—alongside a continuing decline in liquid bulks, particularly reflecting the changing energy generation mix. The consultation closed on 29 July 2025, and 38 responses were received—not a great number, but including numerous seriously considered suggestions for detailed amendments from respondents closely engaged with the sector. We are considering these and will issue a formal response in due course and revise the draft national policy statement for ports as necessary.

One message that has come through from many respondents, aside from the drafting of the NPSP, is the need for promoting wider familiarity with it, especially among local authorities, in view of its relevance to other consenting regimes, as well as for development consent orders under the Planning Act, for which it sets the statutory framework.

In another place, the Transport Select Committee is currently scrutinising the proposed national policy statement for ports and will publish its report by 14 November, the end of the relevant period that has been stipulated. The committee took written submissions up to 1 August and held oral hearings on 10 and 16 September. After the committee has reported, the Secretary of State will formally respond to its report, as prescribed by the Planning Act. The Government then aim to lay the national policy statement for ports in its final form for its statutory 21 sitting-day consideration period. I look forward to hearing all the contributions to today’s debate. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is fitting that, in calling the debate, the House has recognised the importance of the port sector in England and the UK as a whole. Our ports are essential to our trade and our economy, and it is important that they should have a stable, clear planning framework that respects commercial judgment and the competitive setting that has successfully nurtured investment over the years, while at the same time providing for not only environmental protection but environmental enhancement.

Noble Lords will recognise the consultative nature of the draft policy and of this Grand Committee debate, and the range of representations made across the consultation and in the hearings of the Transport Select Committee in the other place. All of those will be considered by the Secretary of State. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I was not going to take the time of this Committee or test the patience of those attending it, some of whom are very well versed in ports, by going through the document in detail. I will attempt to deal with many of the points that have been raised, but, for any that I fail to deal with, I will write.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others raised important points about energy supply, power supply and new technologies. I listened carefully to what he said, because it was very well argued. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Greenway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, also raised those points. We will go away and further consider this. There are energy national policy statements that will deal with the supply of energy, and the Government are working with the energy supply companies, but I very much take on board the rapidly changing nature of energy supply and, therefore, the need for this policy to recognise those opportunities and for us as a nation and the Government to take advantage of what ports can propose to do. The answer to the question of whether we are open-minded to all forms of new energy is that we are; some are immature and therefore need to evolve, but it would be daft, frankly, not to have regard to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Fuller, and others about taking this in hand.

I recognise the extensive experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, at Harwich. We must do this national strategy now because it has not been done since 2012. There is an opportunity to do something more fundamental in the future, but, having not had one for 13 years, the Government intend to get it more up to date to enable port development to be more easily examined through the planning processes and hence go forward more quickly than it otherwise might have done. I take the point, also made by others, that it could be more fundamentally reworked, but the Government are committed to doing something now because, although I hear criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and others, the previous Government do not seem to have had regard to this strongly. They started the process but did not finish it, and our job is to finish this sooner rather than later and then do it regularly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and other noble Lords raised the matter of connectivity to ports. As in other boundary areas between this and the national policy statements, we must take a view on what is covered in which area. I absolutely recognise the proposition that ports need good road and rail connections. As she and other noble Lords will know, we were challenged in the rail enhancements programme simply by the current state of the economy. Proposals that would improve freight routes to ports were not taken forward, but they have not been removed from the plans for ever; they will be considered further. In the meantime, there is consideration of further rail connections at London Gateway—I spoke to DP World about them the other day—so we are thinking about those areas and recognise the importance of those connections. The use of port master plans is primarily for early engagement with communities and planning authorities. We will think further about how much more useful they might be. I recognise what the noble Baroness said.

The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred to important issues around security. We fully agree that, with the current state of international relations and modern technology, we should be very mindful of security. Indeed, this policy is designed fully to include security considerations. He referred to the recent ship collision in the North Sea; it was an unfortunate collision but it was not motivated by security considerations, although we obviously recognise that it could have been. We are mindful of that.

We are also mindful of the need for local authorities to recognise the importance of ports. Indeed, one of the strengths in renewing this document is our renewed commitment to draw this issue to the attention of appropriate local authorities so that they are fully engaged with the development and importance of ports —including the critical nature of ports for all communities in Britain, particularly in the communities where they are placed.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, clearly has intimate knowledge of this sector; I recognise and respect what he says. He is, as many people who are close to these subjects might be, more critical of how this works in practice and how it might work. The best thing I can do is take away his detailed comments and consider them carefully, bearing in mind his long and current experience. I would say that there is no legal impediment to long leases—take, for example, the recent development in Southampton—but I am not going to challenge anything he says, other than to say that the Government are anxious to make the best of this. We will listen carefully to what he has to say. The intention of this policy is to make port development easier and better. We will reflect carefully on what the noble Lord has to say and see what we can do about the points that he raises.

I welcome the general support given by a number of noble Lords in this discussion. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, raised the relationship with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The answer to this is that the Government intend to make things easier to do. This is very complicated; it is not a subject that has been tackled by previous Governments, but this Government are determined to do it. The relationship between these proposals and elements of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill needs to be considered carefully. The final ports strategy will relate to, and be relevant to, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which noble Lords will recognise is going through this House as we speak.

There is a point about the use of forecasts, which is that the forecasts in here are those from Government, but they are not constraints—a point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Applicants are welcome to make their own forecasts. The Government should have some forecasts about port usage, but there is no universal knowledge, so applicants are welcome to make their own. We are going to think about doing more with floating offshore wind farms. The point about FLOW from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and others is well taken.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about Scotland, which has its own policies so this document does not and should not refer to it. He too referred to the interaction with other policies. We must draw a line somewhere about which national policy statements deal with which issues, and we are expecting the energy national policy statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to grid capacity, which I mentioned before. The Government are working with power suppliers. It is clearly an important part of the Government’s energy policy to have enough capacity on the grid and the connections into places that need it in order to supply the power that is so obviously needed, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others referred.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, asked me to reflect on the connection between this national policy statement for ports and the industrial strategy, and I will do so. She raised several other matters that I have already dealt with in terms of onward transport and the capacity of road and, in particular, rail. She raised the matter of the Crown Estate; the department works closely with it. She also raised offshore wind, on which I have already commented. I recognise that she also raised some points about the connection between this policy statement and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will go away and make sure that the statement is consistent with the outcome of that Bill’s consideration in the House.

The intention of the national policy statement is to make it easier for applicants who want to expand ports to do so. That has to be considered at the point of revising the statement. It is not the intention—other noble Lords suggested that it might be—to make this more complex. The outcomes of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and of this national policy statement are clearly designed to enable those who own and operate ports to more easily expand them in order to deal with the commercial development of port traffic.

Finally, the glass of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is definitely half empty this afternoon. I do not recognise some of the things that he is talking about. In any event, I should say to him very quietly but probably persistently, that if the previous Government thought that this was so bad and that the fragmentation of the planning system prevented the commercial development of ports, they could have done something rather more about it in their term of office than they did. Starting this process off, which is obviously the right thing to do after not having an updated statement for 13 years, is designed to make development easier and improve the commerce of this country, and hence its economy.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked me three direct questions at the end, the first of which was: are the forecasts contestable? Yes, they are, and applicants are welcome to use their own forecasts. Secondly, he asked: will the Government take steps on electricity costs and grid connections? They will and I have said that the Government are working with power suppliers. Thirdly, he made a comparison of this with the Chancellor’s Statement in March. The answer is that there is no inconsistency at all. The intention of revising this policy statement is to produce a clearer playing field for port expansion and development. That is exactly what the Chancellor was talking about in terms of developing trade in this country. It has not been done for 13 years. It should have been done; it is being done now, and this is the right thing to do.

Motion agreed.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 1.

1: Page 1, line 2, leave out Clause 1

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

I apologise to the House for my brief absence. In speaking to this Motion, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group and to Motions 1A, 8A, 8B and 29A. It is a pleasure to bring the Bill back to the House for its final stages and to engage on the remaining areas. This is an important Bill that empowers and provides local authorities with the tools to make the right decisions on bus services for their local areas. Debate on the Bill has considered the importance of local bus services and how we need improvement, so I hope that noble Lords will continue to support this ambition.

There have been changes since the Bill was last in this House. These include the removal of some amendments, such as the purpose clause, the assessment of the impact of national insurance contributions on accessing socially necessary local services, and the review of the provision of services to villages. There have been changes that extend the existing zero-emission vehicle measure to Scotland, which replicates the application in England. There is also a carve-out for Wales on some measures, and there are smaller changes on removing unnecessary data overrides and on the variation of franchises.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Motion 1A on the purpose clause. The Government have made it clear throughout the stages of the Bill that improving buses is a priority, and that includes services, performance and accessibility. But the Bill also goes wider, including cleaner and safer travel and providing the ability for local transport authorities to make their own funding decisions. The purpose clause would run contrary to this and could also have unanticipated effects on the interpretation of the Act and the exercise of powers under it. This is something that the Government cannot support.

Motion 8A from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to review the impact of the £2 fare cap on socially necessary local services. My department has already published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 bus fare cap. This showed that the cap delivered low value for money. Work is already under way to undertake a review on the £3 cap. Therefore, a legislative requirement for further evaluative work would be duplicative and unnecessary.

Motion 8A also looks at reviewing the impact of national insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary local services, including transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities, or SEND. This would be impossible to implement, because it seeks a review three months after Royal Assent. Socially necessary local services are likely to take some time to be identified and agreed by local authorities, making any assessment premature.

I understand the ambition behind Motion 8B from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I cannot support Amendment 8C, which seeks to ensure that the £2 bus fare cap is maintained for passengers using services that have been identified as socially necessary local services. I have already set out that the £2 fare cap has been assessed as poor value for money and that work is under way to review the £3 cap. Therefore, any further legislative requirement would be duplicative and unnecessary. In addition, socially necessary local services have not yet been identified and any review into these will take time.

Finally, I turn to Motion 29A from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on reviewing the provision of services to villages. I thank her for her engagement on this issue. I reassure her and others that the Government expect local transport authorities to consider the needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts. Measures such as franchising or setting up a local authority bus company take time, so an assessment within two years would not leave enough time to capture and assess the full impact.

However, following discussions, the Government will commit to undertake a review of socially necessary local services and rural services after five years, which will include local bus services used by children with special educational needs and disabilities. The Bill is about improving local bus services. Therefore, this is the appropriate scope for a review of its impact. It is important and right to understand how these services are performing and supporting the local communities who truly need them. I hope this therefore delivers on the ambitions of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and those behind Motion 8B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon.

For special educational needs and disabled children beyond this Bill, the Government have committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools so that fewer children need to travel long distances to a school that can meet their needs. The Government will bring forward a White Paper with plans to improve the SEND system.

I hope noble Lords will accept the other changes in this group that were made in the Lords and have not yet been debated. I beg to move.

Motion 1A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 1)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 2 to 7.

2: Clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out “relation to”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 8.

8: Clause 14, page 10, line 27, leave out subsections (5) and (6)

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I should advise the House that if Motion 8A is agreed to then I will not be able to put the Question on Motion 8B on the grounds of pre-emption.

Motion 8A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 8)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 9 to 27.

9: Clause 22, page 17, line 20, after “company” insert “to which subsection (5B) applies”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 28.

28: After Clause 37, insert the following Clause—
“Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland
(1) The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 is amended as follows.
(2) Before the italic heading preceding section 36 insert—
“Zero-emission vehicles
35B Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services
(1) The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3) to provide the service in Scotland.
(2) A service falls within this subsection if it is a local service which has one or more stopping places in Scotland and which—
(a) is registered under section 6 of the 1985 Act, or
(b) is not required to be registered under that section because of section 13B(1)(a).
(3) A vehicle falls within this subsection if—
(a) it is constructed or adapted to carry both seated and standing passengers, with the number of seated passengers being more than 22 (determined in accordance with regulations made under section 26 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981),
(b) it is first registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 on or after a date specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the tailpipe emissions from it include any of the following—
(i) carbon dioxide,
(ii) carbon monoxide,
(iii) hydrocarbon,
(iv) nitrogen oxide,
(v) particulates.
(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations—
(a) specify descriptions of document that may be relied on in order to determine for the purposes of this section what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle,
(b) specify descriptions of vehicle in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply, and
(c) specify local services or descriptions of local service in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply.
(5) The date specified under subsection (3)(b) may not be before 1 January 2030.”
(3) In section 39(1) (penalties)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (c), and
(b) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(ca) operated a local service in contravention of section 35B(1) of this Act, or”.
(4) In section 81(4) (regulations and orders), in paragraph (b), after “35A(1)” insert “, 35B(3)(b)”.”

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group and to Motions 30A and 31A.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his Motion 30A and efforts to raise the important issue of bus safety throughout the Bill’s passage. He is pursuing a Vision Zero programme for the bus sector, which would aim to eliminate serious injuries in the course of bus operations. As I said on Report, the Government are sympathetic to the aims of this Motion and we take safety incidents very seriously—in the bus sector and, indeed, on any mode of transport. The Government are committed to reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads and will publish a road safety strategy in due course—the first such strategy since 2011.

The noble Lord has been an excellent advocate for bus safety, and I am pleased to confirm to him that buses will be included in the strategy. This will be an opportunity to highlight existing good work in the sector, including that of Transport for London and the Bus Centre of Excellence. To take the Bus Centre of Excellence example, it has convened the bus knowledge sharing and incident network, bringing together industry experts, safety specialists and bus professionals to share knowledge, develop best practice and shape policy and regulatory improvements in bus safety.

Of course, road safety is inherently multimodal. It is important that we consider all road users and the environment they operate in, be that on foot, by bicycle, in a car or indeed on a bus, to protect people as much as possible. That is why my department has been looking closely at the safe system principles. This is an internationally accepted, evidence-based approach to road safety, underpinned by five pillars: safe roads, safe vehicles, safe road users, safe speed, and post-crash care. These principles are a core component of Vision Zero programmes that have been adopted both internationally, including by Australia and New Zealand following early adopters Sweden and the Netherlands, and locally by authorities such as West Midlands and West Yorkshire.

The Government will look to utilise these principles in their delivery of the forthcoming road safety strategy. This strategy will lay the foundation for government leadership while providing flexibility for local authorities to determine the most appropriate approach for their local circumstances.

This means that local areas can adopt Vision Zero programmes if they deem it suitable. Increasingly, local areas are doing just that. London’s Vision Zero programme is underpinned by a dedicated bus safety action plan and bus vehicle standards. It provides an exemplar of best practice for other local areas to aspire towards. This is already happening. The noble Lord will know that Greater Manchester and Oxfordshire, among others, have recently adopted Vision Zero strategies of their own. The Government welcome other local areas considering bus safety programmes, or even Vision Zero strategies for their areas, but it must be right for them.

I now turn to Motion 31A, which was previously brought by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and is now tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on the recording and publication of data on assaults. This Government wholeheartedly want to make the bus network safer for everyone, and this includes combating violence against women and girls. In considering whether to increase the level of reporting, it is important to also be conscious of the privacy of those who report incidents and whether individuals are comfortable with sensitive data being recorded and shared with external organisations.

I hope noble Lords will take comfort from the fact that the Government are already taking action to address violence against women and girls. We are due to publish a new violence against women and girls strategy shortly. We have also developed an evidence-based programme to tackle violence against women and girls on transport, working across government and with partners such as the British Transport Police.

I would also like to stress the importance of considering what is already captured by the police and avoiding any duplication. Statistics captured by the police include all incidents that have been reported to them, meaning that incidents of serious assaults and violence that occur on buses are already recorded. This is the case irrespective of whether incidents have been reported by victims, witnesses or third parties. These statistics also include incidents whether they are crime related or not—for instance, incidents not immediately recorded as a crime are still captured in the registration of an auditable incident report by the police. Bearing in mind, sadly inevitably, the sensitivity of some of the details in reports from individual women and girls, it is surely much preferable for these details to be held by the police rather than by local transport authorities or bus companies.

Therefore, I hope that the noble Lords feel reassured that the Government have and will continue to take action and that the amendments do not need to be pursued. I also hope noble Lords will accept the other changes in this group that were made in the Lords and have not been debated today. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)]

My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord about the nonsense, if he would like. For five years during that period I was a member of the Labour Party NEC, and, to my knowledge, whatever is in that book is probably a lot of nonsense as well.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to close this debate. I thank noble Lords for their contributions on the important topic of bus safety. To be clear, this Government want a safer bus network and that is why there are already measures in the Bill aimed at supporting this. The Government take this issue extremely seriously and are committed to delivering road safety improvement across the transport system.

Having listened to the points made on the recording and publication of data on assaults, I reiterate that the Government are already undertaking a programme of work to tackle violence against women and girls, particularly on public transport. We are also keen to avoid any duplication of data that is already captured by the police and to ensure that any captured data is kept by an authority that is supremely capable of looking after it.

We are no longer on Report, but I have listened to my noble friend Lord Snape and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for whom I have great respect. The matter of floating bus stops was discussed on Report. I made a commitment, as did the Minister for buses in the other place, which I will not repeat but which we will stand by. I therefore hope that noble Lords are satisfied and feel able not to pursue their Motions. I beg to move.

Motion on Amendment 28 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 29.

29: Page 41, line 12, leave out Clause 38

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 30.

30: Page 41, line 26, leave out Clause 39

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 31.

31: Page 41, line 32, leave out Clause 40

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 32 to 55.

32: Clause 42, page 42, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) Section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland) extends to Scotland only.”