International Maritime Organization: Net-Zero Framework
Debate between Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill and Lord Beamish(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Rail Fares
Debate between Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill and Lord Beamish(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord has some background in this, because he was deputy chair of Transport for London and, I think, the Deputy Mayor for Transport. He knows perfectly well that, when we rationalised the fare structure on the Tube, some fares did go up while others went down. We made sure that the fares that went up were generally ones that a lot of people did not pay for and that the benefits were found across the system. If we have 50 million fares, we inevitably need to reduce that number and ensure that they are balanced. The noble Lord has some experience of balancing them within an overall fare rise, so he should use that knowledge to his own advantage, because I do not particularly want to tell him this again.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, in introducing this Question, the noble Baroness talked about terrible railways. I know that, for many people, the world stops outside London and the south-east of England. As a regular traveller on LNER for the last 23 years, I think it is a very good system, with dedicated staff, and the timings are good. It is an example of what can be done with a nationalised railway system. I urge my noble friend to see what can be done to simplify the offer of tickets, because it is complex even on that line. But it is not all doom and gloom on our railways.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
That is a very welcome sentiment, and I appreciate it. We are trying hard, as is the management of LNER, to get some rationalisation into this, and it is convenient for people. The proposition that you can buy a ticket with plus or minus 70 minutes means that you do not have to travel on the train that you thought you might; there is some flexibility. Regardless of some of the comments about individual fares, the new system is proving very popular, and enormous numbers of tickets are being bought. For example, for the booking horizon between August and December, 1.1 million new semi-flexible tickets are available that are priced at less than the super off-peak fare. People are discovering that a different methodology for this works.