Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument has two objectives. The first is to amend Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation to give the Civil Aviation Authority more flexibility to grant exemptions to the basic regulation. The second is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable further legislation later this year in order to bring the UK into line with international requirements on how far aircraft can operate from diversion airports.
This instrument was originally laid before Parliament in January this year as a negative procedure statutory instrument, in accordance with the procedures set out in the retained EU law Act 2023. Following scrutiny by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments during the sift, the Transport Committee recommended that this instrument be relaid as an affirmative SI. The Government accepted that recommendation, and the instrument was relaid as an affirmative SI in January.
During that sift, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about how genuinely exceptional exemptions to Article 71 would be, given the suggestion that they would be used to facilitate day-to-day activities, and the JCSI raised a concern that
“the changes proposed by this instrument could represent a significant diminution of existing regulatory protections”.
Once the instrument had been relaid, the SLSC reiterated its original concerns and the JCSI had no comments. I will go into the detail of the amendments and then address those concerns.
Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation sets out the conditions under which the Civil Aviation Authority may grant an exemption to the basic regulation for an applicant. A legacy of EU legislation, the existing wording of the law means that the CAA can grant an exception in only two possible scenarios: urgent unforeseeable circumstances, and urgent operational needs. This means that the CAA cannot issue exemptions for foreseeable circumstances with no urgent operational need, such as festivals or testing drones—consider, for example, the Formula 1 races at Silverstone, which handle around 1,000 helicopters over four days.
Under the assimilated aviation law, which is a legacy of the UK’s membership of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency—the EASA—all the basic requirements of the basic regulation would need to be met. This legislation was developed with the requirements of airports providing a permanent service in mind; such requirements are disproportionate for a short event. Currently, the CAA cannot grant exemptions for these events because they are yearly, predictable and foreseeable, even though granting an exemption would clearly enhance safety.
In addition, this amendment will allow the CAA to grant exemptions to businesses in order to enable the testing of new and innovative technologies. Today, that is difficult because many of the requirements of Article 71 do not take into account future developments in technology, such as testing “beyond visual line of sight” drone flights in airspace that is not separated from regular air traffic. The existing rules were made before current “beyond visual line of sight” developments, and it is difficult for the CAA to grant exemptions specifically for testing as testing is usually neither urgent nor unforeseeable. By enabling exemptions to be granted beyond urgent operational needs or urgent unforeseeable circumstances, the UK aviation sector will be able to trial and test new technologies more easily.
As the UK has now left both the European Union and the EASA, the Government are now able to amend Article 71 to give the CAA more flexibility to support safety and innovation. The CAA has developed a robust framework to ensure that exemptions granted under Article 71 will not degrade safety. Each request will be risk assessed by the CAA’s aviation safety experts and will be granted only if they believe that the exemption will maintain a high standard of safety and there is no other way of achieving the same goal. The CAA will examine each request individually, and just because the request has been granted once, it will not then set a precedent for future exemptions.
These criteria are deliberately strict, ensuring that the CAA considers the existing protection requirements for aircraft noise, fuel venting and engine emissions, whether decisions are non-discriminatory, the creation of unreasonable working conditions or safety risks, and whether exemptions support public protection and broader aerospace development. This means that while exemptions will be given for day-to-day activities such as testing, each exemption will still be exceptional. The CAA’s framework will ensure that each request is scrutinised and granted only if applicants can demonstrate high levels of aviation safety, as well as setting out a path to future full regulatory compliance. Regulatory protections will remain and my officials will continue to work closely with the CAA to oversee how the new exemption process is used.
I note that during the consultation, 42 of the 51 respondents supported the amendments to Article 71. One respondent, Unite the Union, raised concerns that exemptions might be granted on a regular basis, particularly where such exemptions could weaken the working conditions of crew onboard aircraft. I assure noble Lords that exemptions will be granted only where a high level of safety can be assured, and the CAA must and will carefully consider the impact of exemptions on working conditions.
I turn to the second objective of this SI, which is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable amendments later this year, which will allow operators of two-engine aircraft more flexibility in how far they operate from diversion airports. Operators of aircraft with more than two engines will now also need to consider their distance from diversion airports. This change will bring the UK into line with international requirements. These amendments could not be introduced without removing the criminal sanction, as the powers needed to amend provisions with criminal sanctions are contained in the retained EU law Act, which expires in June this year. The Civil Aviation Authority has never brought a prosecution under this provision, and I am confident that it already has sufficient regulatory tools to ensure compliance without relying on a criminal offence—for instance, by revoking approvals to fly extended diversion time operations or by limiting operators’ air operator certificates.
On the wider powers gap issue in relation to criminal sanctions, the Government are aware of the powers gap. We are reviewing whether existing powers on the statute book may be able to fill the gap, and we are also considering introducing primary legislation when parliamentary time allows—I await with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. I beg to move.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the Minister mentioned, has looked at this and suggested that the House may wish to seek assurances from the Minister regarding the use of exemptions. In the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday, the Minister said:
“I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]
The issue that I wish to question the Minister on is the capacity of the CAA to handle the various applications. Will he also address the issue of the testing by companies of new products, either aircraft or drones? We know of public events where there are a large number of helicopter flights coming in—golf tournaments, for example; I do not know whether Glastonbury has a lot of helicopter traffic—and I presume that these are covered by this sort of thing.
Without wishing to see things kept overly tight, particularly when we would like to see and encourage companies to develop new products—after all, this country has a tried and tested record of innovation in the aviation sector—the question is: who is overseeing the overseers in this case? I presume it has to be the CAA and the Department for Transport, ultimately, but is there sufficient capacity? Does the Minister expect an increase in these applications, or will it be only short term? If he does, is the capacity there and is his department sufficiently well organised to oversee that process?
The issue, I presume, comes down to the definition of “exceptional”. The Minister in the other place said:
“The shadow Minister asked me to say a little more about what we mean by ‘exceptional’. These exceptions will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way for the applicant to achieve the aims that have been put forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]
He went on to give some examples.
This is a fairly straightforward regulation, but whenever regulations change there is always the risk that the organisation overseeing them may not be as fully prepared as we would like. I perfectly understand the Minister’s position on the powers that have not been used; it seems that there are alternative ways of dealing with those matters without having to regulate any further.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, quoted the Minister in the other place in two respects, and because he quoted him, I do not feel I need to add to either of the things that he said in this Committee this afternoon.
On the question about testing how the Civil Aviation Authority assures itself that operators are acting safely, I have faith in the Civil Aviation Authority. This would not have come forward, fundamentally, if the Civil Aviation Authority was not confident that it was capable of overseeing the changing regulations that are being proposed today. It oversees and audits approval holders and individuals granted privileges, as set out in the regulation. That includes monitoring the effectiveness of organisations’ quality and safety management systems. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to the policy framework for assessing requests for exemptions, which she helpfully asked for during the briefing that she referred to. The Civil Aviation Authority will seek clear justification, demonstrating compliance with the new policy, supported by a robust and documented safety risk assessment, showing that high safety standards can be maintained.
The Civil Aviation Authority is overseen by the department through the State Safety Board, which is a formal body. In addition, my officials maintain a good working relationship with the UK’s independent regulator, the CAA, which is responsible for enforcing all the aviation safety regulations. As I say, I am very confident that the Civil Aviation Authority has the resources to carry out what this statutory instrument is seeking to do. Of course, it has the option of rejecting applications if it cannot resource looking at individuals.
I believe I have answered the point about policy raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. She also raised the question about reporting on actions that have been taken by the CAA. The CAA will publish details of general exemptions applied to defined classes, such as all operators involved in short-term events. It will not publish all exemptions due to concerns about exposing commercially sensitive information for technical developments. I can see the noble Baroness nodding, and I am sure that that is right, because it will also have a duty of protecting people’s commercial positions.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the European Union reset. These powers would only be changed if we joined the EASA, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, which is the organisation I previously referred to. We would have to have rejoined that to make a change to these powers again. I am not aware of any proposal to rejoin the European Union Aviation Safety Agency as part of the reset, which is why we are bringing this forward today.
The noble Lord referred to the gap in powers. I already said that I am awaiting with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. He will be aware that this first parliamentary session has been a long one, so the Government need to take the opportunity of putting forward legislation when they can. I cannot say any more about that, but I do not think that he will find that the gap in powers is quite the terrible thing that he describes.
The noble Lord lastly referred to the reorganisation of the Department for Transport. Today I have signed off an Answer to a Written Parliamentary Question from the other place. There is a reorganisation; a number of people have not moved to join Network Rail—they have moved to join DfT Operator as a precursor to the radical programme of railway reform that the Government put in their manifesto and have committed themselves to. That still leaves—and the Answer to the Parliamentary Question will say so in the other place—no less than 477 people who work on railway policy and HS2. We are not leaving the department bereft of people. I expect that number may go down over time as reform is finished, but that has no effect on the rest of the department, and there is no suggestion in that change that the department is making any change which will affect its capabilities in supervising aviation or the Civil Aviation Authority.
For any question that I have failed to answer or to which I have not given a sufficient answer, I am happy to write as soon as possible. In conclusion, the safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for the Government. The Government are committed to ensuring that we maintain our exemplary record for aviation safety; these regulations represent a further step in doing so. I beg to move.
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(5 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
1. That if—
(a) a High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is first brought to this House from the House of Commons in this Session or in any subsequent Session of this Parliament, and
(b) proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in the Session in which the Bill is so brought (“Session A”),
further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which Session A ends until the Session that follows it (“Session B”).
2. That if, where paragraph 1 applies, a Bill in the same terms as those in which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stood when it was brought to this House in Session A is brought from the House of Commons in Session B—
(a) the proceedings on the Bill in Session B shall be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in Session A;
(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in Session A or in any relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session B;
(c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in relation to the Bill in Session A shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session B; and
(d) if there is outstanding any petition deposited against the Bill in accordance with an order of the House—
(i) any such petition shall be taken to be deposited against the Bill in Session B and shall stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in Session B; and
(ii) any minutes of evidence taken before a select committee on the Bill in Session A shall stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in Session B.
3. That if, where paragraph 2 applies and Session B is a Session of this Parliament, the proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in Session B—
(a) further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which Session B ends until the Session that follows it (“Session C”), and
(b) paragraph 2 shall apply as if—
(i) references to Session A were to Session B, and
(ii) references to Session B were to Session C.
4. That paragraph 3 shall apply again, with the appropriate modifications, if—
(a) Session C is a Session of this Parliament, and
(b) the proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in Session C.
5. That paragraph 3 shall apply again, with the appropriate modifications, in relation to any Session of this Parliament subsequent to Session C, if the proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in that subsequent Session.
6. In paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the references to a High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill include references to any Bill previously of that name but the name of which was amended by the House of Commons prior to the Bill being brought to this House.
7. In paragraphs 1 and 3 above, the references to further proceedings do not include proceedings under Standing Order 83A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
8. For the purposes of paragraph 2 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session—
(a) Session 2021-22;
(b) Session 2022-23;
(c) Session 2023-24;
(d) except where the Bill is first brought to this House from the House of Commons in this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the Session in which the Bill is so brought.
Rail Freight
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(5 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards achieving their target to increase rail freight volumes by 75 per cent by 2050.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government have a clear ambition for rail freight growth, with a target of 75% by 2050, and we continue to work collaboratively with freight operators and Network Rail. My department’s modal shift revenue support programme and Network Rail’s access charges discount policy have been hugely successful, awarding £39 million over two years to eight freight operators and supporting 19 new flows. We continue to progress the Railways Bill, which will enable GBR to further support rail freight growth with the first ever statutory target for growth.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is encouraging to hear the Minister repeat the Government’s commitment to that target, which they inherited, of course, from the previous Government and which we support. However, the rail freight industry is, I think, finding it increasingly unconvincing, because the Government have refused, so far at least, to put this target into the Bill which is currently in the other place. They are leaving it, in effect, to the discretion of Great British Railways, which will of course be in competition with the freight operators for the very same paths on the railway. Would the Government not like to strengthen this target by making it part of the statutory obligation imposed upon Great British Railways in the Bill?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government have been quite clear that setting a statutory target is in the Bill, and we have also been clear that it is 75%. In practice, that protects those freight paths that have been in the timetable for a long time but are not necessarily used other than at short notice. That is the reason for the proposed statutory inclusion in the Bill. For that reason, GBR will not be in competition for those paths. Those paths will have to be reserved in order to allow the target to be effective in the future.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned the issue of competition for rail freight. I am pleased to hear him say that the Government are keen to grow rail freight, but it is difficult to see, in the text of the Bill, how Great British Railways, which will have control of most passenger services as well as access to the track, will be able to treat fairly open access passenger operators and rail freight operators. Is this something on which the Government have consulted the Competition and Markets Authority to see whether there is any potential for conflicts of interest?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Railways Bill is framed to give Great British Railways the authority, for the first time in over 30 years, to control access to the railway and make sure that it is fairly distributed and serves the nation’s economic and social purposes. That is in Clause 60. Clause 63 talks about GBR operating passenger services. The reason that the freight target is specified in the Bill is so that GBR will have the obligation to leave both freight paths that are used in the timetable for freight trains and those paths that are not used but will be needed for the expansion of freight services and are needed at short notice to be used by freight operators.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what consideration are the Government giving to increasing the capacity at London Gateway, Britain’s second largest container port, by the electrification of just three miles of track to the port, which would allow for the use of faster electric locomotives for freight?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Baroness asked me that question. Network Rail has found some money to do studies on greater access to London Gateway, and that is the right thing to do. The question of electrification is one of the subjects that we need to discuss with the port’s owners, DP World. The other subject is the level crossings, which are probably a greater barrier to more freight trains there. I have recently written to the local district council about this, and my department is looking to have a meeting with DP World, Network Rail and the freight operators to decide how best to take that forward.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, will the Government speed up digital signalling and proper traffic information in the cab so that there can be more slots for all types of rail traffic, because obviously we want to expand rather more than the Government are suggesting in the short term?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
How right the noble Lord is. The digital signalling programme for the east coast main line does absolutely as he describes, which is to give more capacity on the existing track. It is in train, as far as I know; it is on target and on budget for the south end of the east coast main line. It is subscribed to by all the operators, including all the freight operators that use it. One of its principal objectives is to get more train paths out of the same railway.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we are to get a substantial move of freight on to the railways, we need to move to palletisation as opposed to containerisation as the principal unit that is used, and that to do that we need to construct proper freight villages in order to have the transfer that is necessary, and that without those infrastructure improvements we will not get to the target?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It was a privilege for me to open the ninth Maritime Transport rail freight hub in Northampton about six weeks ago. I had a long discussion with John Williams, the chief executive, and we discussed precisely that. We were discussing how we should measure this, because tonnage is maybe not the best way of measuring container loads—in fact, the numbers of containers might be a better method of doing it, if we could find a way. The Government are very active in this, as am I personally. It is clear that intermodal container traffic, and indeed national container traffic, is the largest growth feature of this market and we should do everything we can to encourage it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there are a number of existing barriers to rail freight, particularly between East Anglia, the port of Felixstowe, north Yorkshire and the rest of the north of England. One of the barriers is the urgent upgrade needed to Haughley junction. Does the Minister have a timetable for when that upgrade will be made?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There is no use upgrading Haughley junction without upgrading Ely. Previous Governments have not found the money to do that and, regrettably, in the financial circumstances that this Government find themselves, we have not so far found it either. But I have had some useful discussions with local Members of Parliament and the combined authority mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough about what we can do both to improve the business case for Haughley and Ely junctions and to reduce the cost. One of the crippling costs of that upgrade is the number of level crossings needed because East Anglia is very flat; there may be some things that local highway authorities can do which would make that project easier to do and give it a better business case in the future.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the secrets of growing rail freight is to increase the versatility of freight locomotives? In that context, will he welcome the development of tri-mode freight locomotives—electric, battery or diesel—so that they are able to run anywhere in the country?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend clearly knows a lot about it—probably more than I do—but I was at the launch of the Class 99 locomotives last autumn, which I think are the ones he is referring to. There are 30 being leased and operated through GB Railfreight, and he is right that they will be versatile to run anywhere. In fact, that may solve the issue at London Gateway port that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to, because if there were battery-electric locomotives then we would not need fixed electrification. It is right that the rail freight fleet needs to be updated. That investment is very welcome, and I expect it to be followed by investment by the other freight operators which believe that there is a long-term future in freight on the railway.
Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 February be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 23 March. Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
Small Boat Deaths: Cranston Inquiry Report
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this was a sobering report setting out the circumstances that led to the tragic loss of over 30 lives. Our sympathies remain with all those affected. Significant improvements have been made since 2021, including more people and assets, new technologies and strengthened departmental oversight. However, we must learn from the inquiry and do everything we can to prevent anything like it happening again. We are carefully considering the report and plan an interim response by the end of May.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend—he has answered half my question already. The report has highlighted that there are very serious deficiencies in our ability to rescue people at sea and that we compare unfavourably with Italy and Greece, which have more and better-equipped boats. The RNLI and Border Force do a wonderful job in trying to save lives, but they are not well equipped with their boats to do so. I hope the Minister will do all he can to implement as much of the Cranston report as possible as quickly as possible before the summer comes along and more people are liable to drown in the channel.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the first thing to say is that crossings of the English Channel in these circumstances are extraordinarily dangerous. Notwithstanding that, more than 152,000 people have been successfully rescued since November 2021. There are now five dedicated Border Security Command vessels in the channel available for search and rescue tasking; these successfully conduct approximately 93% of the rescues in the channel and are supported by RNLI vessels when required. I pay tribute, as I am sure the House also does, to the RNLI volunteers and indeed all those who contribute to life-saving in the English Channel and elsewhere. The Government recognise the gravity of the matters Sir Ross Cranston has reported on and are determined to take all actions necessary following his report.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this report follows on from a statement made by the UK Government on 4 February at the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. On safety at sea, it says that
“it is essential to promote a common, coherent and effective implementation of the legal framework for search and rescue policies in Europe and to help member States to strengthen their solidarity”.
In respect of England and France, can the Minister tell us how that statement will be put into effect?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that collaborative action with our neighbours is key to making the sea safer in these circumstances. It is clear to me from the actions taken before the report was published and from what has been going on since that relationships with the French in particular, and the Belgians, are being pursued very seriously with a view to making sure that if there are any gaps, they are closed as much as possible.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I was pleased to have commissioned Sir Ross to conduct this inquiry and I place on record my thanks to him for his excellent report, which highlights the danger of channel crossings, the appalling organised crime groups that exploit vulnerable people and the difficulty for any Government in balancing border security and protecting life at sea. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government are going to come forward in May with an interim report. I urge him to look at the fantastic work His Majesty’s Coastguard does with its partners in the RNLI, and at strengthening its resources to make sure that we can protect life at sea while also ensuring that we have secure borders.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I compliment the noble Lord on instituting the report when he was Secretary of State, because losing more than 30 lives at sea is clearly a very serious matter. I have already said that there are now many more resources for Border Force, the coastguard and, when necessary, the RNLI, with a view to making sure that such a thing is never repeated.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, the Cranston report runs to over 400 pages. What is the most important lesson to be learnt from it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I spent most of last weekend reading the report—I do not claim to have read every word—but parts of it are extraordinarily harrowing because they comprise evidence from two survivors. It is clear that, as a consequence, a large number of actions are needed. Fundamentally, there were insufficient resources, and insufficient process was followed in the right way, which contributed to this tragedy.
On the other hand, on the night when this occurred, there was also a large number of rescues, and we should at least be proud that many people contributed to rescuing numbers well into three figures, so not all is wrong. As always, the trick with these things is to be positive about the changes that need to be made and recognise the heroism and bravery of those who go out to sea at night in very difficult conditions, but also to make sure that the backing and numbers are there for them to operate safely and do their jobs properly.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I think we would all agree that the best way to reduce the number of people dying in the English Channel is to reduce the number of unsuitable boats crossing the English Channel. The Government were elected on a pledge to smash the gangs. How is that going, and is the effort going to be helped or hindered by the sudden resignation after only 18 months of the head of UK Border Security Command?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are taking strong, decisive action to do something about this issue. In particular, we are removing around 60,000 people who had no right to remain, and the historic deal with the French, which means that those who arrive are now being detained and sent back, is considerable evidence that the Government are not slacking on this matter.
We should pay tribute to Martin Hewitt, who established Border Security Command. In his time as commander, he has helped to deliver landmark legislation and put in place leadership and governance. We will make an announcement on his successor in due course.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Four years ago, the Government chose not to act on Alexander Downer’s recommendation to then Home Secretary Patel that responsibility for search and rescue in the channel pass from Border Force and the Home Office to the coastguard and the Department for Transport. The Cranston report now recommends that that recommendation from Downer be acted on. Will the Government act on it? If not, why not?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Cranston report makes a number of recommendations. The actions to be taken my department in order to get the best possible outcome must consider all the recommendations together, so I am not going to mention any one particular action at this moment in time. However, the department is committed to taking serious note of everything Sir Ross said and to answering all the points made by him, both in the interim report and thereafter.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, since 2024, the Government have given the French gendarmerie £500 million plus. Does the Minister feel that the French have done enough to make good use of that money?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not going to comment on the actions of our near neighbour. There is more collaboration now than there was. The number of boats that arrived last year, in 2025, was half that in 2022. We need to get on with them sufficiently for both sides to deal with this problem together.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, we know that war and conflict is the key driver of the number of refugees and asylum seekers. Given the state of the world, what is my noble friend the Minister’s assessment of the impact of that on the resources that will be needed to ensure safe passage?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am afraid that this particular Minister is ill qualified to work out the effects of international conflict. What I should say in respect of those matters for which the department is responsible is that we have to be ready for all the numbers in order to ensure the safety at sea of all those who go to sea, however they go to sea.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, as is evident on the internet, social media is used to facilitate illegal migration in numerous countries globally, serving as a key tool for people smugglers to advertise their services. What are the Government doing to stop this advertising of illegal migration on social media?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are committed to taking action in every way they can. Since I do not deal with social media—I have plenty to do with transport—if there is any more to say to the noble Lord on this matter, I shall write to him.
Public Transport: Accessibility
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure public transport is fully accessible.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to improving public transport services so they enable disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. The Bus Services Act 2025 and the Railways Bill both include a comprehensive package of measures to improve the accessibility of public transport. We have also committed to developing an accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local transport authorities, driving improvement towards a barrier-free transport system.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given that the Government have cancelled a significant number of Access for All schemes which had not been fully funded, will the Minister commit to a replacement long-term programme of accessibility works on the railway to ensure that there is a pipeline of improvements, and to help the supply chain have the confidence to invest in this area?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The oldest railway in the world still needs better accessibility at many stations, between platforms and trains, and in information and customer service. We have committed to more Access for All schemes at stations following the recent spending review and intend to set out clearer criteria for future such schemes, which we would expect to fund in future spending reviews and with third-party contributions. The long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy will embrace easier access on to and within trains. The results of all this will produce a clearer future pipeline for the supply chain.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the work he has done on accessibility; he has real experience and commitment. To that end, does he consider so-called floating bus stops to be inclusive by design and accessible for all? That is but one example; whether it is trains, taxis, buses, streets or stations, there are common issues of exclusion and inaccessibility. Does he agree that, tragically, the truth is that in the UK we do not currently have public transport—we have transport for some of the public, some of the time?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I absolutely respect the noble Lord’s determination in the matter of people with any disability accessing public transport. A lot has been done on the accessibility of the bus service, and the noble Lord knows that during the passage of the Bus Services Act, we agreed to cease those particularly difficult propositions whereby you alighted from a bus or got on to a bus directly from a cycle path, which do not work and clearly are not sustainable. On floating bus stops, the noble Lord knows that we paused them and that we have published a better definition of a floating bus stop, which is still a bus stop. The Government intend to proceed with a balance of interests of both cyclists’ and bus users’ safety, which includes disabled people.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, thousands of new trains and carriages are coming into service on the national, regional and underground networks between 2025 and 2030. The Minister referenced the rolling stock strategy, but how many of these trains will exceed the minimum legislative compliance for accessibility, and how many will have a proper platform-to-train interface? I ask this after recently negotiating what is now known as “the leap” at Norbiton station—which, ironically, is the main transport access to Kingston Hospital.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: there are far too many varieties of train on the national network. While it has been possible to build and operate trains with level access to at least normal height platforms, that has not been and still is not a consistent feature of recent train orders. One of the reasons for a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy is to embed level boarding in all future train orders. However, the noble Baroness also knows that these things last for a very long time and sadly, some of the vehicles that have been bought will last for the next 30 years. It is quite difficult to fix that, but she is right that it does need to be fixed.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the owner of a wheelchair-accessible taxi. What is the Minister’s ambitious timetable to finish the work to make all public transport wheelchair accessible?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I rather thought that the noble Lord would ask me that question, since I only met him at 11.30 am this morning to discuss the same issue. His determination to make taxis fully accessible is admirable. However, since taxis are intrinsically part of a service of both taxi and private hire vehicles, and 87% of the total provision of private hire vehicles is not taxis, the Government are determined to embrace his determination with our own determination to make the whole provision suitable throughout England for wheelchair users and people with all disabilities. We will have more to say on Report of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in this House shortly, when we deal with the amendments the noble Lord has tabled.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, would it not help the standardisation of trains if we ensured that the trains we purchase—whether for the rail network, the Underground or even the light railway systems—are produced in this country by British workers?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very good point. The variation in orders for railway rolling stock has been feast and famine. It resulted in the closure of several manufacturing facilities over the last 30 years, and there is now one manufacturing plant and three assembly plants. One of the determinations we have is that the long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy produces a forward order book which is sufficient to keep those plants and the workers who work in them running for the long-term future.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, accessibility into Macclesfield station is severely curtailed for disabled people. The booking hall has been refurbished, which is most welcome, but it would be helpful if there was a completion date. Can the Minister look into this matter? The travelling public understand that it takes time to do refurbishments, but it would be helpful if they had a completion date as the dates keep changing at Macclesfield.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sorry—I know quite a lot about the railway system, but I do not know the completion date for the station works at Macclesfield. I will find out for the noble Lord and write to him.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I come back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Borwick. Is the Government’s new position that they would make taxis accessible in the rest of the country outside London, where they are already accessible, but they feel inhibited in doing so because they cannot make private hire vehicles—a completely distinct legal category —accessible at the same time? Is that the Government’s current position? Is that what the Minister said?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I do not think that is what I said, because if I meant to say what the noble Lord said, I would have said it. The point is that the definition of “taxi” is venerable and that taxis, in various forms, have been on our streets for several hundred years. Private vehicle hire, as the noble Lord knows, has been legitimised in London only recently and, in the rest of the country, is quite different from what it was 20 years. We need to make sure that the combined provision of those two types of vehicles, which provide what is nearly but not quite the same level of service, is suitable for the users of those services throughout the various rural and urban areas of England.
The present design of accessible taxi of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, is a beautiful vehicle that is largely used only in London because it is so expensive. We need to make modifications to all taxi and private hire services, as the legislation is woefully out of date, and find a way to make them suitable for all people, both disabled and non-disabled, who seek to use them as means to get around their towns, cities and countryside.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend welcome the reopening of Kings Heath station, which was closed in the Second World War? It is a fully accessible station, and the first trains will go through it on 7 April.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am delighted that my noble friend raised that. It is one of several stations that have been completed in the West Midlands; all are accessible and all will make travel around the West Midlands easier, which will improve economic growth and access to jobs and homes.
Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations will lower the minimum age at which the Office of Rail and Road, ORR, can issue a train driving licence to a person to drive trains on the mainline railway in Great Britain from 20 to 18. Under the regime, applicants will continue to be required to satisfy the same conditions for driving trains contained in the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010, hereafter called the 2010 regulations. These licence conditions will remain unchanged. They include completion of at least nine years of primary and secondary education or vocational training equivalent to level 3 qualifications, and proof of passing medical, psychological fitness and general professional competence examinations.
By lowering the minimum age from 20 to 18, these regulations will bring Britain into line with several other countries including Germany, the Netherlands and Australia. They will also be consistent with the London Underground, where professional operating roles can begin at 18. These regulations will not change the minimum age to be a train driver in the Channel Tunnel, which will remain at 20, consistent with our international obligations.
I will begin by providing background information on the regulatory framework and the case for lowering the minimum age to be a train driver. The railway network currently depends on approximately 19,000 train drivers. These drivers operate passenger and freight services across the country. The 2010 regulations established the legal conditions required to drive trains on the mainline railway and cover both licences and certificates.
A train driving licence confirms that a driver has been medically and psychologically assessed as fit and has passed a general competence examination in train driving. As long as the driver continues to meet these conditions, the licence remains valid for 10 years. Drivers must also hold an employer-issued certificate showing that they are trained and authorised to drive specific trains on specific routes. A driver must hold both documents.
The 2010 regulations implemented the EU train driving directive, which sets a default minimum licensing age of 20 across the EU. The directive also allowed member states to adopt a lower age of 18 for domestic services, but the United Kingdom did not choose to do this in 2009. Since then, as I have mentioned, several countries have successfully implemented a lower age limit and others are actively considering it, including Japan.
In 2019 the Rail Safety and Standards Board, RSSB, undertook research to look at the case for lowering the minimum age in Britain. It published its findings in February 2024. The RSSB found that 18 and 19 year-olds can drive trains safely and professionally when held to the same training, assessment and supervision standards as older recruits. At the same time, lowering the age limit widens the talent pool, increasing driver numbers and improving representation.
The research found that experience, not age, is the determining factor in whether a new entrant to the profession will enjoy a successful career. This experience is gained through practice and exposure to train driving. Experience is a central feature of train driver training and can be gained through a structured training programme. Training and assessment typically take between 12 and 18 months and involve several months of classroom and simulator learning, alongside 225-plus hours of practical train driving. This is followed by mandatory examinations and post-qualification monitoring and assessments.
Support for the policy was reaffirmed in a May 2023 post-implementation review, prompting the previous Conservative Government to consult on the proposal. The consultation, published in May 2025, showed broad support from major industry bodies, including ASLEF—the train drivers’ union—and train operators, although some stakeholders sought assurances about transition arrangements.
For this reason, on 7 May 2025 my department confirmed that we would move forward with lowering the minimum train driver age, subject to receiving an industry implementation plan that would then determine the timetable for changing the law. The Rail Delivery Group, working through the Train Drivers Academy, co-ordinated the industry’s response, gathering industry specialists to review existing arrangements and identify opportunities to optimise the system. The industry confirmed that existing safeguards, testing and supervision remain appropriate for younger entrants, but recommended that operators update their procedures and ensure staff understand how best to support new trainees. Overall, the implementation plan demonstrated that a lower minimum age for train driving can be introduced safely and without requiring major changes to core safety or competence management systems.
The department and the ORR approved the implementation plan in December and published it on GOV.UK on 19 March. The plan proposed several practical improvements that industry will now implement to strengthen recruitment, assessment and training for all new drivers, not just younger applicants. These include fairer and more transparent recruitment processes, clearer information about the role, better support for managers working with younger colleagues, more consistent industry-wide communication, and development of a simple and accessible recruitment portal. To help monitor arrangements, a study is proposed to monitor the progress of younger drivers over time, which will use a small group of pathfinder operators to test, refine and share effective approaches.
Taken together, the industry has produced a clear and evidence-based strategy that will help bring younger entrants into the profession safely and confidently. We are confident that these arrangements will be in place by June this year, which is why we have scheduled the legislative change to take effect on 30 June. From that date, young people will be eligible for train driving positions.
I turn to the reasons why the Government are bringing forward these regulations and their intended objectives. The rail industry is facing significant skills shortages across several key areas, particularly train driving. Around 25% of the current workforce is expected to reach retirement age by 2030. We project that there will be a deficit of 2,500 train drivers by the end of the decade unless action is taken.
In some parts of the country, such as Wales, that figure is closer to 38%. Even in London, where the proportion is lowest, nearly a quarter of drivers will retire within the same period. Without a concerted effort, this presents a retirement cliff edge that risks the industry’s ability to maintain current service levels. Operators are already experiencing difficulties in recruiting new drivers and are too frequently reliant on overtime to sustain timetables.
At the same time, there is clear evidence that the rail industry is not yet drawing on the full breadth of talent available. The workforce remains relatively homogenous: the average train driver is 47 years old, fewer than 11% of them are women and fewer than 13% come from minority-ethnic backgrounds. This points to significant untapped potential across the country.
Lowering the minimum age of train drivers will not on its own solve driver shortages, and it is still the responsibility of operators to take steps to secure the workforce they need. This change is, however, an important first step and will help the industry to build a more resilient pipeline of drivers by creating a clearer route for school leavers to enter the profession. This is because the current minimum age of 20 has for many years acted as an arbitrary barrier to entry. By that age, many young people have already committed to other employment, vocations or further study. Lowering the minimum age to 18 will allow operators to engage school leavers and offer a clear, structured route into a highly skilled and respected profession. In doing so, it will help the industry respond to the demographic and operational pressures it will face in the coming years.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly his succinct response to the issues raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is good to have those comments on the record. It also saves me the trouble of asking all the questions that it asked and pressing him to give answers in his wrap-up. That has considerably shortened the remarks I entered the Room with.
On my part and on behalf of the Conservative Party, we wholly welcome this statutory instrument and the development it contains. It was, in fact, a Conservative initiative, as the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks. It is always good to have new measures that help youth employment at a time when youth unemployment is rising so dramatically under the current Government.
However, while I welcome the regulations wholeheartedly and without reservation, and while I think they are a very good thing in principle, I have slight doubts about whether they are going to make an enormous difference in practice. First, as the Government say, there is already a strong demand for train driver roles. Lots of people want to be train drivers, yet the fact is that the workforce is very restrictive. The Minister mentioned the retirement profile that is approaching, and I do not need to repeat that, but as far as I am aware, the average age is 47. Less than 3% are under 30, and women make up less than 11%. I wonder what has brought that about. It is not the restriction from the age of 20 that is causing that, and moving it to 18 is unlikely to change it, especially given that these are well-paid roles for which there is a great deal of demand.
What is in the process of happening as a result of the Government’s policies is that the Government are becoming the employer. The Government might say that Great British Rail is becoming the employer, but that does not exist and will not exists for several years at the rate things are going. The Government themselves—the Department for Transport, through its subsidiary companies—are the employer. So trying to understand, trying to tackle the root explanations for this strange profile in the workforce with a view to opening up the demographic of our train drivers, is a responsibility that falls squarely on the Government. I have not heard the Minister say what, as an employer, the Government are going to do about that.
I welcome that he has explained, I think quite convincingly, what he is going to do to make it easier for 16 to 18 year-olds to get on track in this direction, but what are they going to do about the existing profile of the workforce? How are they going to get people of other ages, who might be in their mid-20s or who might have done some other role, to enter the workforce at that stage—urgently—and get involved, given the cliff edge that we are promoting?
There are serious issues. We know that the workforce has tended to be restrictive about how one can enter it, and that its general profile is not reflective of the population at large. While I am not encouraging diversity for the sake of diversity, some of the problems we have are because the pool has been very narrow and widening it from 20 to 18 is not the key issue that will resolve it.
The Government’s impact assessment states that they have looked at other countries, including France, Germany and the Netherlands. If the Government are looking to other countries, they might also look to other working practices that need changing. One example is Sunday working, which in many countries is built into the contracts of train drivers. That is not so here, and we are dependent on voluntary overtime for Sunday running of the trains. It would be useful to know what the Government are thinking of doing about this as part of their general workforce programme, now that they are the employer.
On the question of age, I come back to the issue of Transport for London. The Government said that the age limit of 18 already applied at Transport for London, which is true, yet, as far as I can see, there are very few young drivers at Transport for London. We have the problem that, according to a freedom of information request, Transport for London does not currently employ a single train operator under the age of 23, and that person is a bit of an outlier anyway. Similar problems exist at Transport for London regarding retirement cliff edges, even though they operate this lower age limit for entry.
The general verdict is that we are in favour of the lower age limit and we recognise the problem, but we do not think this is enough. The Government will have to go a great deal further to solve the problems that the Minister set out in his opening remarks.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their attention and for their comments about this instrument.
In response to the noble Baroness’s questions, I reassure her that I and my officials are working closely with all the people involved to ensure that we can capture the interests of young people and promote awareness of the opportunities. I think it will be easier with 18 year-olds than it is with 20 year-olds because of the measures that I talked about, including apprenticeships and the prior preparation for these jobs. We know that it will be easier, and we intend to do a great deal to make sure that, across the industry, we engage young people and showcase what a career in train driving can offer.
The industry is more co-ordinated than it was. For example, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the train circulating to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the national railway system. It has a carriage devoted to interesting young people in railway careers, which has been enthusiastically welcomed wherever it has been. On a more long-term basis, operators will work closely with schools and colleges to deliver talks by other young train drivers, share experience and support activities that will inspire young people to consider this as a career. We know that we need to do more across communities, and the opportunity of engaging younger people will be a stimulus to achieve that.
The noble Baroness referred to the consultation in which there were objections from existing drivers to this proposal, but we do not believe it is correct to say that the majority of drivers opposed it. I have met a number who are very keen on it, including some people of a relatively venerable age. We think that the objections are individual and not representative of the wider industry view. Certainly ASLEF, the largest train-driving union, which represents 95% of drivers on the network, strongly supports the measure. For any who have expressed concerns, I believe they are mostly about somehow compromising the rigorous high standards that existing drivers must meet. I hope I have reassured the Committee that that will not be the case, that standards will continue to be as high as they are now and the full competitive selection process will still be followed. In any event, we will monitor how the new arrangements are working in practice as part of the longitudinal study.
Finally, the noble Baroness asked what additional measures the Government are actively considering. Aside from what I have already said about updating and widening access to existing rail apprenticeships, the Government recently invested £1 billion into the national youth employment initiative, which will help to create 200,000 new jobs and apprenticeships. Those measures will strengthen generally high quality apprenticeships, while the rail industry having the new apprenticeships that I talked about will encourage young people into this industry.
There are already key initiatives across the railway industry, including women in rail, the National Skills Academy for Rail’s routes into rail campaign, Network Rail’s inspire and STEM programmes and the young rail professionals network. We will make sure that they all embrace 18 year-olds in the future so that we get a more diverse pipeline of talent into the sector. My department will also look at potential reforms to the legislative framework for train driving to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and continues to equip train drivers with the training they need in this evolving industry. Of course, Great British Railways will make it easier to work with the industry to develop proposals for consultation over the next years.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his general support for this measure and concur with him that it was initiated by the previous Government. He asks what else we will do. One of the answers is that there is a much more vigorous recruitment programme than under the previous Government. Severe shortages have developed since Covid. The Government are working extremely hard to make up the deficiency in vacancies and work out properly what the establishment of the railway is. Several operators clearly lost sight of that in the previous regime. We will raise the railway’s profile with schools and use the precedent of the bus industry, which similarly reduced the age some time ago and has found a good source of younger people.
The noble Lord referred to Sundays not being part of the working week. That is a real problem, and the industry has not been consistent on it. Some employers have Sundays within the working week. The Secretary of State in the other place has said a number of times that it is time that the railway employed people for seven days a week, since that is how it works. That will encourage employment characteristics that are more like the rest of the railway and, we hope, encourage people into the industry as well.
Lastly, the noble Lord raised the Underground’s lower limit and its apparent absence of young people as a consequence. My own surmise is that—I will write to him if this differs—recruitment to fill the night Tube, which he will recall, has distorted the age profile simply because there was a large recruitment of drivers for it. Subsequently, employment conditions changed again, and those people are now part of the normal workforce, so that distorted the age profile.
I hope that I have satisfactorily answered all the questions from noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. All that remains for me is to beg the Committee to consider the statutory instrument.
Rail Infrastructure Resilience: Storms and Floods
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the resilience of rail infrastructure against future storms and floods.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, my department’s climate adaptation strategy for transport embraces detailed work on the railway infrastructure by Network Rail. That organisation has produced weather resilience and climate change adaptation plans by railway region, looking out not only over the five-year control period to 2029 but further into the 2030s. Those plans identify priority sites for maintenance, renewal and enhancement. Beyond 2029, work programmes will be firmed up and funded in future control periods.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that Answer and to know how much work Network Rail is doing to mitigate the effect of global warming. But when we look at the south-west, we see most of it cut off for several days—weeks, occasionally—not just by high tides, which are going to get higher, but by river floods. We may get a situation where the whole railway between, say, Newton Abbot and Exeter is closed and not repairable, so is it not time to start a formal study into the viability of inland routes and how they could be developed? That would give people who live in the south-west some comfort that the long-term resilience of the whole rail network down there is being looked at and preserved.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
As an engineer, my noble friend will know that Brunel built the railway around the south Devon coast in 1846 and that it has been under attack by the tides and weather ever since. The most serious closure was of nearly 60 days in 2014, and that was remedied by a large-scale investment project that spent £165 million. That resulted in a railway that was sufficiently resilient to remain closed for only 36 hours earlier this year, despite terrible weather.
The citizens of Devon and Cornwall can be quite comfortable that the future resilience of the railway is being looked after. The alternative route, which stopped operation some 60 years ago, in fact closed temporarily for a much longer period due to the heaviest rainfall ever recorded in the south-west. It would not be a sufficiently resilient route, even if it could be afforded to be rebuilt.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, first, I wish the Minister a happy birthday. As we have been discussing, extreme weather is our new reality, leading to the Tarka line, which links Barnstaple to Exeter in the south-west, already being closed for 24 days this year as a result of the recent storms. Will the Government commit to increased investment to help our railways adapt to the new climate and to keep passengers moving, whatever the weather?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her good wishes. There have been quite a lot of birthdays in my life so far. The Tarka line is part of what was the Southern route around the northern edge of Dartmoor. The highest rainfall ever in the south-west of England closed the line for a long period of time simply because the bridges had to be inspected to make sure that they were safe for traffic. There was a terrible accident some 40 years ago in Wales, when a bridge collapsed due to erosion after a storm. I can reassure the noble Baroness that Network Rail is looking at some advanced sensor technology in order not to have to wait for rivers to subside sufficiently for divers to inspect the foundations of bridges. That is a fairly modest expenditure, and I think it will help the resilience of the lines to Barnstaple and Okehampton.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, what progress is being made on doing some of this resilience work outside just bank holidays and weekends? A programme was set in place by the previous chairman of Network Rail to ensure that this work is done at other times of the year. Is that still being undertaken, and what progress has been made on that front?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the previous chairman of Network Rail recalls one of the previous Secretaries of State telling him to do something like that—and, as an obedient public servant, that chairman went off and did it. The lines north of Exeter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred are, rather unfortunately, closing for two weeks in just a few days’ time. They are being closed in the winter season, when use is less, although it will still be inconvenient, precisely because it is cheaper and much more efficient—and the work gets done better—to do large-scale track renewal and maintenance of drainage and other structures. That cannot be done everywhere but, where it can be done, the noble Lord is absolutely right that the railways should do more of it. The co-ordination that will come from Great British Railways will enable more of that sort of work to be done.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, Network Rail—being, of course, a state entity—does not buy third-party insurance from anywhere, but the insurance industry has an amazing number of modellers and information about the natural perils in the United Kingdom, particularly the sweet-water peril and the salt water peril that we are discussing. Can the Minister tell us whether the insurance industry is being tapped for its expertise in trying to manage and predict these perils?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Earl asks a very pertinent question, and I will write to him. I believe that is true, but I cannot say for certain. Following the Carmont disaster, when people were killed as a result of an earthworks failure, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, wrote a very powerful report on earthworks maintenance for Network Rail, and Dame Julia Slingo did similarly on the weather. During my tenure at Network Rail, it started by buying the cheapest weather forecast it could. Dame Julia has pointed out that you can now forecast the weather in two-kilometre squares throughout the country; that is what Network Rail now does, and it helps prevention. I take what the noble Earl says very seriously and will write to him to make sure that the knowledge in the insurance industry is used.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has a very reassuring attitude towards travel, particularly in the south-west, but I think it will be many more birthdays before he resolves issues such as Dawlish Warren and the current closures we have in south Devon. Does he understand that users of the Tarka line, of which I am one, are not just people like me? There are a lot of students travelling from places in the north of Devon, such as Barnstaple, and all the villages and communities in between, trying to get to places such as Exeter College for sixth form on a very regular basis. Very often, the buses that are put in place do not necessarily tie up, and it is extremely difficult for them, particularly when they are facing things such as exams.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I absolutely recognise that. The prolonged closure after the recent flooding has meant that Network Rail’s attention has been very sharply drawn to the need for both the structures and the earthworks to be more resilient, and for the inspection process for bridges, which I referred to earlier, to be done in a more expeditious way. I entirely recognise that many communities in north Devon rely solely on that railway, and that it must perform better in the future.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, in light of the repeated flooding of key routes operated by East Midlands Railway in the area that I serve, particularly the Erewash flood plain near Ilkeston, as well as the Trent Valley, what assessment have the Government made of the cost effect on businesses from loss of trade and overall productivity, and the wider social costs that arise, when railways are not functioning properly due to persistent flooding?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is completely right that the real costs of an interruption to the train service are suffered by individuals and businesses. This Question has so far concentrated largely on the south-west, but the right reverend Prelate reminds us that this is prevalent throughout the country. The adaptation plans that I referred to in my original Answer cover the whole of Great Britain, including the railway in Scotland and Wales. They are designed to reduce, as far as possible, the risks posed by flooding and other weather events to the whole railway on a continuing basis, precisely because of the effects of an interrupted service, as the right reverend Prelate says.
Cyclists: Safety
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of which safety measures for cyclists are the most (1) effective, and (2) cost-effective, for reducing (a) accidents, and (b) injuries.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, well-designed infrastructure, particularly of the kind that provides protection from motor traffic, can improve both safety and perceptions of safety for cyclists. In addition to our £626 million investment in active travel infrastructure that we announced last year, we have now also published our road safety strategy. This sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads, including cyclists, by 65% by 2035.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. The Government have said that they want cycling to be a safe, healthy, green and accessible option for everyone. However, 4,000 cyclists were killed or seriously injured on our roads in 2024. Cycling is nearly 10 times as dangerous as driving. Potholes and poor road surfaces are a major hazard, and a recent survey suggests that 88% of cyclists find these a danger and that 22% have been injured as a result. I cycle daily in Oxford, and the potholes are getting worse, not better. The extra funds allocated are not sufficient. Industry experts tell me that there are better ways of repairing potholes than slapping down a patch of cold asphalt that comes out after a few weeks. Are the Government encouraging councils to use the latest and best technology for repairing our roads?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My department supports innovation in the local highways sector by creating conditions that enable the safe, evidence-led adoption of new products and approaches, while leaving decisions on individual technologies to local highway authorities. This includes providing record long-term funding for highways maintenance, with a proportion of funding linked to the demonstration of best practice, including the adoption of innovative techniques. The Government require each local authority to publish annual transparency reports to help local people understand what action is being taken to improve their roads. Oxfordshire County Council is no exception: its recent report highlights that it works closely with its supply chain to trial new materials in highways maintenance, including graphene asphalt, which it claims has been successfully used to enhance the durability of road surfaces.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am a regular cyclist. I suggest that the wearing of helmets and high-vis jackets and, in urban areas, the provision of cycle-only tracks is the most effective way of reducing injuries.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Viscount is certainly right that the segregation of cyclists, where it can occur, is a good thing. The Government recommend the use of helmets and high-visibility clothing. He is absolutely right to emphasise those things, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was asking particularly about road surfacing, which is important. The Government take it as important to improve the surfaces of roads for both cycling and driving.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, countries such as the Netherlands continue to lead the way in quality transport infrastructure. Around 72% of secondary school children walk or cycle to school there, whereas in the UK that figure is only 38%. What will the Government do to make it easier and safer for children to walk and cycle to school?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The £626 million investment over four years in active travel infrastructure is designed to do precisely that. The noble Baroness is completely right; we want people to walk and cycle, and we want kids to do that as a matter of habit. That is why the Government are investing so much money. Before Christmas, we consulted on the third cycling and walking strategy. I anticipate that that too will have something to say in the direction that she wants us to go in.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister please tell us what action the Government are going to take to make cyclists more aware of their responsibilities towards pedestrians? All too often, cyclists show a complete disregard for the Highway Code and the safety of pedestrians.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The behaviour of cyclists is a concern to pedestrians, vulnerable people and, indeed, motorists. The road safety strategy covers the full range of road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. It is important that everybody using our roads behaves in accordance with the Highway Code and the law but, as my noble friend will know, the enforcement of laws in relation to traffic, cycling and motoring is the business of chief police officers.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the safety of cyclists is critical, as is the safety of all road users. To that end, will the Minister consider reviewing the recently published guidance on so-called floating bus stops, which does not deliver safety for cyclists, pedestrians or, indeed, anyone? It fails on being inclusive by design, on safety and on inclusion for all members of society. To put it another way, as a blind person put it to me: “How can I get a job when, as a consequence of these discriminatory changes, I can’t even get a bus?”
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have great respect for the noble Lord’s views on this. He will know that, as the debate on the then Bus Services Bill went on, my ministerial colleague took decisive action to stop one particular design and review the standards. That is what we have to do, because there is not unlimited space on roads and pavements. We have to find a safe way for people to board buses, for disabled people to be able to navigate pavements, and for cyclists to cycle. We are doing our best at that. The noble Lord will know that we have put a lot of effort into floating bus stops, and that has not finished yet.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, does the Minister have any idea how to combat the negative view of cyclists from so many people here in your Lordships’ Chamber? Could we have some sort of educational programme to help them understand?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Self-education is not a bad thing sometimes. I know that the Mayor of London is making strong attempts to improve the behaviour of cyclists. It is a concern that people feel able to cycle through red lights and across zebra crossings when people are on them. It is dangerous not only for pedestrians, disabled people and other road users but for cyclists themselves. I am very pleased to see that the Mayor of London is running that campaign and I hope that other local highway authorities do so as well.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some real problems can be caused by Lime bikes and rental bikes? If a cyclist causes an accident or injury and the person using the bike is underage or the bike is stolen, there is no insurance cover and the companies refuse to take responsibility for the accident. Will the Minister look at what can be done to rectify this matter? It has caused some real problems, particularly here in the capital, and these companies need to take responsibility.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There certainly is an issue with illegal or underage use of hire bikes. I take what my noble friend says with great seriousness. We are considering what else to do about this matter.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, coming back to the perennial topic of floating bus stops, when we debated the Bus Services Bill, the Government gave an undertaking through an amendment that they would review the design of those bus stops. That new design has now been published. Is the Minister not the slightest bit embarrassed that the new design looks almost exactly the same as the old one?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
No. The reason for that is that a bus stop looks like a bus stop, as the noble Lord will know, and it is pretty hard to make it not look like a bus stop. The serious point at issue is that some detailed design features need to be carefully considered. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, says with great seriousness because he makes the point passionately and from experience. I believe that the department has done better and I think it will evolve. I also believe that we have done what we said we would do. I am not in the least bit embarrassed about improving something a bit because that is all you are likely to do at one time.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill ExcerptsTuesday 24th February 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026 View all Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 155-I Marshalled list for Report - (6 Feb 2026)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the scrutiny, due diligence and expertise of noble Lords during the debates on this legislation. This Bill is a huge step forward. By unlocking the potential of sustainable aviation fuel production in the UK, we can significantly reduce aviation’s greenhouse gas emissions, grow the economy and support green jobs. Your Lordships’ input as this Bill has progressed through this House has meant that it leaves this place in better shape.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whose engagement and scrutiny of this legislation has been welcome, particularly on HEFA. I am sorry about the acronyms—this Bill is particularly full of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have been exemplary in their engagement on the Bill. I thank them for their continued scrutiny, and in particular for making sure that transparency is at the forefront of the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, whose amendment to the Energy Act paved the way for the first consultation on a revenue certainty mechanism for SAF. His expertise on this subject has been invaluable.
The Bill will now ensure the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only where the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the UK, which was always the Government’s intention. In addition, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for the expertise and clarity he has brought to our discussions on power to liquid and feedstocks more generally. Finally, I extend my personal thanks to all the officials who have supported me, including the Bill team, legal colleagues, the drafting team in Parliamentary Counsel and others who have been involved in its successful passage.
I look forward to seeing this Bill pass. If we are to create the jobs and attract the business investment Britain needs, we must grow aviation and grow it sustainably. This Bill does just that. I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, before I say a few words, I would like to declare my interest, as listed in the register, as non-executive chair of RVL Aviation. I thank the Minister and the Government for continuing the sustainable aviation fuel regime that we set out, the revenue certainty mechanism and the investment in UK industrial production of sustainable aviation fuel. I thank him for listening carefully to the points made by colleagues in Committee, and for bringing forward appropriate amendments on Report. Finally, I thank him for responding to a number of points I made by committing to keeping the House informed as government policy develops in this area. I am very pleased to support the Bill as it makes its way on to the statute book.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, despite the applause from all sides of the Chamber for this Bill, I am afraid it remains a very troubling piece of legislation. It has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, effectively as a piece of net-zero legislation, but, as I have insisted throughout its passage, this is not net- zero legislation. The net-zero effect in relation to sustainable aviation fuel was achieved by the SAF mandate put in place 15 or 16 months ago, which requires airlines to mix in an increasing amount of HEFA, and, increasingly, other fuels, over time. That is what will make the contribution to net zero.
This Bill is in fact a piece of industrial policy. It is based on the premise that somehow, because we will consume SAF, we need to be a world leader in producing it. Despite my pressing the Government repeatedly, the Minister has not been able to offer any reasons for thinking that we have a comparative advantage in this field and that we should dedicate resources to it. The Bill’s means of doing this is by piling subsidy upon subsidy. It really is, as I say, very troubling.
Through this Bill, we are now guaranteeing a floor price for SAF producers, and the risk is being transferred away from them. That risk is being transferred down the chain to airlines and their passengers. We on our side sought a commitment from the Government to be transparent about the likely impact on fares. Instead, they, along with the Liberal Democrats, chose to shield the travelling public from the dangerous knowledge of what they will actually pay for this policy over the years ahead. Much of what matters to make this Bill work is in fact saved for secondary legislation and indeed for commercially confidential negotiations between officials on the one hand and the shark-toothed lawyers of the international investor sector on the other. It is a recipe for success—I am sure the Minister would want to say that.
Despite all that, I cannot fail to thank the Minister for his now reliable courtesy and helpfulness in the passage of this legislation, in working with the official Opposition and other noble Lords, and in his responsiveness. I also thank his officials, who have been very helpful and have responded rapidly and efficiently when we have had questions for them. I am grateful to all those people for doing that.
I pay particular tribute to my noble friends Lord Harper and Lord Grayling for their contribution in the debate, but also to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, with whom I worked on certain amendments. We have achieved some improvements to the Bill as it has passed through your Lordships’ House. None the less, the best solution for this Bill would be that it is never called upon or used, and that we procure sustainable aviation fuel for use in our airline industry from the cheapest and most efficient source, whether that be produced here in Britain or elsewhere.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords and I commend the Bill to the House.