European Union Entry/Exit System

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am absolutely sure that my department is taking a keen interest in it. Again, this is not immediately connected with the European Entry/Exit System, but I would be very happy to write to the noble Earl and say what progress there has been.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, given that the Channel Tunnel has quite a lot of capacity, what consideration have the Government given to the increased use of the tunnel for rail freight? Will the Government’s strategy for increasing rail freight in this country include a proposal along those lines?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an excellent point. In fact, the Government and I are very active in encouraging more freight through the tunnel—and, indeed, more railway freight generally. Of course, as the noble Lord will know from our discussions on the then public ownership Bill and subsequently, the Government intend to give Great British Railways a target to increase rail freight, particularly in respect of the use of Eurotunnel. Both Eurotunnel and HS1 have the facility to discount track access charges for new freight. When I meet the freight community, as I do probably more often than the passenger operators —at least as a group—I regularly encourage and unfailingly remind it of this so that we can use the surplus capacity to which the noble Lord refers.

HS2 Reset

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the history of the HS2 project is not a happy one. It was initially proposed in its current form by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and endorsed by Gordon Brown in the wake of the global financial crisis, then taken up enthusiastically by the coalition Government, in which all major decisions were made by a quad that included Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, and, indeed, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, sadly not in her place, was a Minister, as was Norman Baker. It was then taken forward further by the Conservative Government following 2015. Failure often has many parents, and there is no doubt that HS2 has been a mess. The letter from Mark Wild and the report from James Stewart leave us in no doubt of that at all.

I thank the Minister for the Statement. I welcome the appointment of Mike Brown as chairman of HS2 and the appointment last year by the Conservatives of Mark Wild as chief executive. Both are people with whom I have worked in the past, as has the Minister.

My first question to the Minister is whether there has been equally significant change in senior personnel at the Department for Transport. I ask that because the James Stewart report leaves one in no doubt that the Department for Transport failed sufficiently to distinguish its various roles in this project, including as sponsor, as funder, as policymaker and as shareholder.

This brings me to questions of governance model. The settled orthodoxy in recent years has been that, for government-supported projects to succeed, there must be a clear structural division between a sponsor body and a delivery body. On paper this is logical. The sponsor sets the strategic direction and prevents outside parties changing the objectives by gold-plating and adding further requirements as time goes by. It holds the delivery body to account, and the delivery body focuses on the execution.

In the case of HS2, this model has not functioned as intended: it has broken down. Rather than providing a framework for responsibility and efficient delivery, it has resulted in a culture of what might be called “deferral”. The dominance of the Department for Transport—well known anecdotally by those familiar with the project—over the board of HS2 has resulted, as James Stewart identifies in his report, in the board not carrying out its functions but deferring important questions it should have taken to the department. As a result, decisions were delayed, accountability was blurred, and independence of delivery was undermined.

At the same time, the department itself did not fully separate its own strategic oversight role as sponsor from its various operational entanglements. There was no clear split within the department between those who were supposed to hold the project to account and those who were working with it in other regards. We are therefore left with very serious questions that go way beyond HS2. They affect, for example, the restoration and renewal project of the Palace of Westminster. Something we relied on as a dependable structure—which appeared to prove itself largely in the case of Crossrail, for example—has broken down. My second question to the Minister, then, is, what thinking are the Government giving to a new model that is going to work well for future projects, or are we now steering blind?

My final point relates to Euston station. Euston is, strictly speaking, no longer part of HS2 Ltd’s responsibilities, as I understand it. It was a decision of the last Government to put it into a separate company, but I am not aware of the existence of that separate company; perhaps it exists on paper. I am not aware of the board of that company, or the chairman of that company. I am not aware of what that company is actually doing, because, while the Government have committed to taking the tunnels forward from Old Oak Common to Euston station, there is as yet no plan for the delivery of platforms at Euston station, which would allow passengers to make use of those tunnels.

I am not speaking for my party now, so much as for myself, when I say that I have always felt that a terminal-station solution for Euston was somewhat old-fashioned. We should perhaps take as an example Thameslink at St Pancras, which simply has two platforms underneath the station, and the trains come in and they go through. Perhaps we should be thinking now—it would cost money, but then, the plan for Euston station is going to cost a great deal of money—about alternative solutions that might take the lines through to a depot to the east of London. Can the Minister say something about the plans for Euston and how open the department now is to alternative solutions?

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, in the late 2000s there was an absolute cross-party ambition in the UK to build a high-speed railway connecting London and the north of England, and ultimately Scotland, and increasing the capacity of our railway was at the core of that ambition. The Liberal Democrats—and I am speaking on behalf of my Benches today—have always supported this. It is not about a nice-to-have, fast, shiny new railway line which we all love, but helping to alleviate the pressure and capacity restrictions on the existing rail network, and supporting growth.

This Statement, the James Stewart review, which is to be commended, and the associated papers set out a damning story of Conservative mismanagement. What should have been a fantastic example of investment, connecting our great cities of Leeds and Manchester with London while boosting economic growth, has in reality been a Treasury spending spree wasting billions of pounds of public money and causing years of delay, based on a political whim of the day. It is a textbook example of how not to build modern infrastructure, and the Conservative Party should be ashamed of their mismanagement.

The Conservative Government focused on a schedule before sufficient design work had taken place—a recipe for disaster that we have seen play out—and constantly changed the scope and requirements of the project. Reading the Statement about HS2 brought back many memories about what happened with Crossrail. There was no real oversight, and there were confused lines of accountability. Key people were not listening to those who were reporting that the build was not on time, and they chose to water down those warnings up the line. There was constant pressure to change the scope, an obsession with an opening date above all else, and a lack of capacity in the Department for Transport to oversee major infrastructure projects.

This reset for High Speed 2 is therefore absolutely welcome. To date, the project has failed to follow international best practice in building major projects. We on these Benches stress how much we welcome the new leadership of Mark Wild, as chief executive of High Speed 2, and his forensic work in unpicking what happened and getting the programme back on track, to a realistic timescale and budget. He took over Crossrail when it was on its knees and turned it around, motivating the team to deliver the Elizabeth Line, which is such a pleasure to use and is one of the busiest train lines in the country. I know he can do the same with High Speed 2.

The project has again shone a light on poor procurement and poor contract management within the Department for Transport. What actions will the Government take to address insufficient capability within the Department for Transport, particularly in commercial and delivery expertise, and client work on major infrastructure projects on this scale? What will the Government do to build trust with local communities and wider stakeholders in this new HS2 project? What changes will the Government make to the governance structure and financing of High Speed 2 to ensure that costs and schedule estimates are reliable? As always, we want to gain wider learnings from this. As I called for after Crossrail—in fact, I briefed a previous chief executive of High Speed 2 and Ministers about the issues we had found during the Crossrail delays—we want to build more transport infrastructure to help our regional economies grow. To do this, however, we need a structure to deliver it on time and on budget.

Self-driving Vehicles: Disabled Passengers

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government are really committed to including people with disabilities in mainstream life and work, and I think the availability of autonomous vehicles ought, over time, to enable that more fully, as we have described—in rural areas, for example—than happens now. The Government have consulted extensively over where to go and what to do in this respect, and I will make sure that my department has consulted with all other necessary departments on this, but I would believe that to be the case, without doubt.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and other noble Lords have made some very important points, but I draw the Minister’s attention to an account in the Daily Telegraph this week of a report from the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism suggesting the real likelihood that these automated vehicles could be programmed by terrorists so as to launch mass attacks on pedestrians in our streets—so-called slaughterbots. This is a grave matter. Has the Minister read that report, and can he give an assurance that these vehicles will not be allowed on our streets unless that risk has been eliminated?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have no doubt that the noble Lord spends far longer reading the Daily Telegraph than I have time for. As it happens, I did not read that particular article, but I do know of the subject. Of course, we have to be concerned in all aspects of national security that things controlled by clever computers and technology are not misused by those who are enemies of the state anywhere. It is also a common issue with these vehicles around the world. I am not going to say any more about that now, other than that the Government know perfectly well that this is a possibility. When and as they take action on this, they will make sure that the risk to the public is absolutely minimised.

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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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


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

Driving Test Delays

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

Channel Tunnel: International Rail Strategy

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations do not extend, and in some circumstances restrict, competence to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles which are not zero-emission vehicles.”

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister has explained, this is a very narrow and technical instrument, but it has some very interesting and indeed rather sinister ramifications.

If we start with the first interesting ramification, we could talk, at least briefly, about the state of the roads. There is a great deal of complaint about potholes in the road. I would go a little bit further. I suggest that there are many roads in this country now which do not merely have potholes, but where the base of the road—its underlying structure—is now seriously damaged and has not been properly maintained. It is true that this was not looked after well by the previous Government, but it has got worse under the current Government.

I was in Oxfordshire at the weekend. I drove along one road in the country that was in such an appalling condition that it was reminiscent of the sort of 19th-century travel writing one reads of enterprising journeys into Calabria and strange and unexplored parts of Europe at the time. This road was virtually about to break up completely. Our roads are falling to pieces and the Government are doing nothing about it.

Why is that relevant to this instrument? I can hear noble Lords asking that question—gasping in fact, in exasperation to try to know the answer. The relevance is that the principal reason why roads are breaking up in this country is the weight of vehicles: not the occasional juggernaut that passes down an Oxfordshire lane, but the relentless beating they take from heavier and heavier vehicles. Part of that is due to the fashion for SUVs, which I personally deprecate and cannot entirely understand, but a great deal of the rest of it is to do with the fact that electric vehicles are, as the Minister has said, notably heavier than petrol vehicles. That is what is breaking up our roads. This Government are doing nothing at all about it, and it is getting worse. They said they would be better than the last Government—they are not making those improvements.

That brings us to the instrument, which tries to make it easier for vehicles to be heavier, if I can put it that way. It removes certain restrictions that have been placed on the driving of heavier electric vehicles.

We should start from the point that the purpose of putting conditions on driving licences, which we have done for many decades, almost since they started, is to achieve road safety. That is why we have different licences matching different sorts of vehicles. The conditions that the Minister is removing today were put in place for safety reasons. The Government are making the case that they are no longer required for safety reasons, and the Official Opposition accept that. So to the extent that these restrictions are being removed, we have no objection to it on safety grounds; the Government have made that case. But they are being removed solely for electric vehicles, and it is very important to draw two conclusions from this.

First, the Government are sending, whatever the Minister says, a very powerful signal to people trying to develop synthetic and alternative fuels—the limits are not being reduced and the conditions are not being removed for those—that they do not matter. The Government have made their choice: their option is to back electric. They are not backing the alternatives. That is the first message, and it is not a good one. It was, as the noble Lord says, aired in the other place.

The second point, which was not, I think, aired in the other place, but is an important one, is that the Government are doing this because, as set out in paragraph 5.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“Although alternatively fuelled vehicles produce less CO2 emissions than petrol and diesel vehicles, alternatively fuelled vehicles still produce CO2 emissions at the tailpipe. Consequently, these vehicles would not meet the Government’s objective for all new cars and vans to be zero-emission at the tailpipe by 2035”.


This is what is sinister: this is the first time that conditions have been attached to driving licences, not for the purpose of road safety, not to match skill to the type of vehicle being driven, but to achieve a government net-zero policy. In principle, it opens the door to other measures whereby driving licences are restricted so as to match government policy on net zero. Those people, many of them on lower incomes, who are dependent on internal combustion engines and will probably never be able to afford an electric vehicle as things stand, will find themselves squeezed out of the possibility of driving them as more and more restrictions are placed on their driving licence. This would be a genuinely sinister and worrying trend. The Government should be ashamed, quite frankly, of paragraph 5.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, and they should repudiate it.

Finally, of course, a driving licence is no use whatsoever if you cannot get a driving test, another point that arises from this. It is again true that the Government inherited a large backlog of driving test bookings—people could not get through—but that has now risen to a queue of 600,000 people waiting for a driving test. The Government, although we aired this in the House recently by way of an Oral Question, are making no progress on this; things are going backwards. They are not better than their predecessor on this—they are palpably and measurably worse. I hope the Minister can address that point as well.

This instrument in itself is not objectionable—except for the signal it sends to synthetic fuel manufacturers and, most importantly, the introduction of the principle that driving licences can be manipulated to achieve other government policies. This is also an opportunity for the Government to explain why money is not being put in, on the other hand, to strengthening our roads to carry these heavy vehicles—rather, the roads are breaking up—and what they are doing to make a driving licence a reality by allowing people access to driving tests. I beg to move.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have any argument with the Government over their laudable environmental and other objectives in bringing forward these regulations, but I have a question that is really to do with the physics of the matter. We know that kinetic energy is a key, or perhaps the key, determinant in the severity of and damage caused by road accidents. Kinetic energy is of course calculated as half of the mass times the square of the velocity.

Essentially, if, as I understand it, the Government are content that it is safe for a category B licence holder to drive a 4.25 tonne vehicle powered by zero-emissions means, why is it not safe for that same driver to drive another vehicle powered by any other means? In the event of a road accident or collision, the power source of the vehicle the category B driver is at the wheel of will make no difference to the brakes and tyres, and to the impact caused to the other vehicle involved in the accident.

When we are legislating on road safety, we have to take into account the realities and physics of the matter as well as other government objectives, such as decarbonisation, laudable though they may be. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will first turn to the regulations and then to the fatal amendment.

The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome these regulations, which represent a sensible step forward in facilitating our transition to zero-emission vehicles. Zero-emission vehicles, or ZEVs, such as those that are fully electric or hydrogen powered, are often heavier than our petrol or diesel equivalents. This additional weight is primarily due to the weight of the batteries. Since weight has been mentioned in this debate, I will just say that although electric vehicles are heavier than cars of the equivalent size, they are not heavier than the vans, buses, lorries or lots of other things that use our roads.

Previously, this extra weight could push these vehicles into higher driving licence categories, such as category C or C1, requiring drivers to undergo additional training, testing and, potentially, medical examinations and professional competency certificates. Regulations introduced in 2018 attempted to address this by allowing category B licence holders to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tonnes but only under specific conditions: five hours of additional training, driving only to transport goods and no towing ability. These conditions, however, have proven to be an unnecessary barrier to the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, with the cost, time and training required being prohibitive for businesses.

These new regulations remove these previous conditions, allowing standard category B licence holders to drive ZEVs up to 4.25 tonnes without the additional five hours training or restriction on goods transport only. This will significantly reduce the regulatory and financial burden on businesses and individuals looking to switch to cleaner vehicles. This should be something that the Conservative Party welcomes—I understand that it is a party all about removing unnecessary regulations for business.

These regulations also allow the towing of a trailer, provided the combined weight does not exceed 7 tonnes, bringing ZEVs in line with petrol and diesel counterparts in this regard. Furthermore, important provisions are included to support drivers and passengers with disabilities, allowing ZEVs with specialist equipment to weigh up to 5 tonnes on a category B licence. This is very welcome and ensures equitable access to the benefits of these regulations. There is more to do in this space to ensure equal access in terms of the design placement of batteries, which inherently restrict disabled use and access to future autonomous vehicles by disabled people.

These Benches support the decisions to narrow the scope of this flexibility from alternatively fuelled vehicles to specifically zero-emission vehicles. While alternatively fuelled vehicles produce less CO₂ than petrol or diesel, they still produce emissions. Focusing these licence flexibilities solely on ZEVs aligns with the cross-party consensus and the Government’s commitment for all new cars and vans to be zero-emission by 2035 and our legally binding net-zero obligations. It rightly supports the cleanest vehicles.

However, as we have heard, concerns have been raised about the removal of the five-hour training requirement, which was previously considered necessary, requiring questions about potential impacts on road safety. While the Department for Transport assessed the risk of removing the conditions as very low, based on current, albeit limited data—the Minister mentioned very few cases—concerns have been raised that heavier vehicles could lead to more severe damaging collisions, particularly involving lighter vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Indeed, this was an issue that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised.

Against this, we note that these modern vehicles inherently have more safety features, including systems such as collision avoidance. I ask the Minister how the department will

“closely monitor incident data as it becomes available”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/25; col. 375.]

I ask what specific matrix will be tracked and what thresholds could trigger “swift action” to protect the public if a concerning trend does emerge? What is the timeline for publishing the detailed safety guidance? What steps will be taken to actively disseminate it to drivers and businesses, particularly those who run electric fleet vehicles? I call on the Minister to commit to publishing a full and transparent review of all the safety data within two years and for that review to be made public.

Finally, the target for new EVs by 2035 is UK-wide. The Minister has mentioned this, but we have concerns about the fact that this does not extend to Northern Ireland. The Minister has been clear that this is something for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I wish to ensure that we have uniformity of regulations across the whole of the United Kingdom, so I encourage the Minister to continue those conversations with colleagues to make sure that we have the same regulations across our isles.

I turn to the fatal amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is not fatal.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

For noble Lords’ information, the cost of an electric tuk-tuk in China is about £1,500.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very grateful. That is something the Minister should respond to. I shall not comment further on it other than to say that it is a useful thing to know. But the BMW i3 is not £1,500; it costs a great deal more, and that is beyond the scope of the majority of people.

My noble friend Lord Goschen and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a point about road safety. The Government have given assurances on this. Although I am happy to accept those assurances for today, they will be held to them. We will expect those changes to be monitored for their road safety effects. The Minister has said that and we will hold him to it—it is a very important consideration.

Concerning the state of the roads, much has been made by the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the fact that a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. I know that. Everybody knows a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. It has the word “heavy” in its name. The key difference is that there are 33 million cars in this country. There are 500,000 heavy goods vehicles. The damage being done to our roads is not, as I said in my opening remarks, because of the occasional passage of a heavy goods vehicle down a lane in Oxfordshire. It is done by the relentless passage of heavier and heavier cars across those roads, which is not only leading to potholes but breaking up the base and creating a huge maintenance and restoration bill for our roads that will not, in my view, be properly addressed by £1.6 billion.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Government were given the opportunity to reject the notion that they were going to manipulate driving licences and the conditions on driving licences to achieve objectives related not to road safety or vehicles but to net-zero policy. That would open a door to further manipulation in the future, which could well be used to disadvantage—as the price of a BMW i3 already disadvantages—people on lower incomes. The Government took no opportunity to reject that. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, endorsed it and thought it was a very good idea. That is a cloud perhaps no larger than a man’s hand, but it will come back—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I think there is confusion here. This regulation is fundamentally about removing restrictions, not placing them. I think the noble Lord is confused on this point.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Do I have to read out paragraph 5.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum again? I thought not. I think it is engraved in the minds of most noble Lords that the purpose of the differential lifting of these restrictions is to achieve our net-zero policies. I should not have to read out the whole of the paragraph, because the noble Earl, Lord Russell, read it out verbatim, as if it were part of his speech. In fact, this paragraph was cut and pasted into his speech, so why should I have to remind him? I think he is the one who is likely to be more confused. This is a very dangerous door the Government have opened, and it will cost them votes when people realise what they are doing.

In the meantime, with that remark, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the Government’s Motion.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

E-scooters: Insurance

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those expressed by other noble Lords. It was the Minister’s expertise and enthusiasm in particular that shone through. I thank too the Bill team and the Table Office. We got some truly cross-party support, and it was great fun. It is true to say that, since it has gone through this House, it has become a much safer Bill than when it began here.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister’s private office, the Bill team and the other civil servants involved in the Bill, who have dealt with the Official Opposition with promptness, courtesy and responsiveness in an exemplary way. I also thank the Minister for his openness and engagement with the Opposition during the Bill. That contributed greatly to its swift and efficient passage through Committee. The Minister sets an example that many of his colleagues on the Front Bench could follow in relation to transparency, engagement and so forth, which could help with the dispatch of our business in your Lordships’ House. I thank the Opposition Whips team, in particular Abid Hussain and Henry Mitson. I express particular thanks to my Whip throughout all this, my noble friend Lord Effingham.

I am trying to be positive when I say that this is not the worst Bill introduced by the Government so far, but none the less it remains a pretty poor Bill. It does damage and removes private entrepreneurialism from the bus sector, where, as we know, private enterprise and the spirit of private enterprise are the only keys to economic growth. It is here primarily to gratify the unions and certain local authorities and not to do very much indeed for passengers. Most importantly, it gives powers to local authorities that they are neither equipped nor funded to exercise. To that extent it is, as I have said earlier, a somewhat bogus Bill.

We have improved the Bill in your Lordships’ House. We have added a purpose clause so that we know what it is meant to be about and what standard we can hold the Government to. We have ventilated further the £2 bus cap and what the consequences are of removing it, which is a further amendment that passed. We have also brought into the Bill the very sensitive issue of special educational needs transport and the effects that the reduction in the threshold for national insurance contributions has on that sector and its survival—which is so important. As I say, that is now part of the Bill as it goes to the other place.

We have removed unnecessary language—dangerous language—about what was expected from bus drivers in dealing with crime. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said, we have also seen amendments to review services to villages, which we were glad to support. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has introduced an amendment which focuses on improving the overall safety of buses and the way in which bus services operate. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, sadly not in his place—as indeed he was not when the amendment was moved on his behalf by my noble friend Lord Moynihan—has added important protections to the Bill in relation to violence against women and girls.

Finally, it is worth noting the flanking action by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which saw improvements made to the Bill in relation to floating bus stops, the back of which I think we would all like to see. So, it leaves your Lordships’ House a better Bill.

The Minister said something about the Bill coming back. I see no reason for it to come back. All those amendments are very worth while, and I hope that the Government will embrace them in the other place and simply move on.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

Cambridge South Station: Car Parking

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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