National Policy Statement for Ports

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and the initiative the Government have offered us in extending, in many respects, the public consultation that ended in July this year, on which your Lordships’ views, as we have heard from the Minister, will be taken into account. In the absence of a single ports Bill, a revised national policy statement for ports, while welcome, is a good first step but needs to be turbocharged with a business strategy to encourage investment, create jobs and encourage a competitive response to bring shipping to our ports. All the people working in those ports demand first-class facilities, excellent operations and competitive pricing.

I intend to focus on one aspect of the consultation. One of the implications of the regulations that we increasingly have to follow is the need for fast charging facilities, which do not figure sufficiently in the proposal we are considering today. EU rules, which require major ports to provide shoreside electricity for large passenger and container ships by 2030, aim to cut emissions and support maritime decarbonisation goals. The move towards battery-driven container shipping is accelerating but remains concentrated in certain vessel types and regions, with full-scale adoption for large ocean-going container ships still in its early stage. As of 2025, more than 1,000 vessels worldwide use large battery systems for propulsion, either fully electric or hybrid, with about 550 more on order, representing a dramatic increase from just a few dozen ships a decade ago.

However, most of those are ferries, offshore supply vessels and smaller cargo ships. Container ships are just beginning to see commercial-scale battery adoption. In a long-term strategy document of this type, it is vital that the Government are ahead of the game and creating economic growth in this sector. Today, fast charging infrastructure at UK ports is in its early infancy, with significant pilot projects and investments under way but not yet widespread or universally available. I urge the Government to give this subject greater consideration.

The UK’s first major shore-power cold ironing and electric ship charging project is under way at Heysham Port. Cold ironing is the process of supplying a docked ship with electricity from an onshore power grid, which allows the ship to shut down its auxiliary engines and reduce emissions, noise and vibrations. The work at Heysham is part of a broader plan to create green shipping corridors across the Irish Sea, supporting shore power for conventional ships and fast charging for future fully electric vehicles. This includes the eight-port network. Peel Ports Group and NatPower Marine are investing some £100 million to equip eight key UK and Ireland ports with charging infrastructure by 2030, with Heysham leading as the first net-zero port in the UK. These ports will support vessel charging and electric vehicle charging for landside operations. Then there are the south coast demonstrators. The Electric Seaway project has installed eight fast charging sites along the south coast, primarily supporting leisure and small commercial vessels under 24 metres. This is a robust regional network but is not yet designed for the largest container or deep sea ships. However, that must come.

The major problem that the Government, the Minister and his department need to address is limited grid capacity to our ports. As of now, only eight of the 32 major UK ports are expected to have sufficient electrical capacity by 2050 without significant upgrades, indicating that the fast charging rollout is still in its infancy and faces infrastructure challenges. The Minister’s comments on that major hurdle to growth would be greatly appreciated. However, let me try to help the Government with some suggestions.

Thought needs to be given to increasing the number of pilot and funding schemes, such as the Government’s clean maritime demonstration competition, to accelerate infrastructure upgrades. We need to assess port electricity capacity and plans for phased upgrades to handle high-power ship charging. We need to collaborate with technology providers and shipping lines to prioritise routes and vessel types for electrification. We need to monitor lessons from early projects at Heysham and the Electric Seaway for best practices and pitfalls.

The Minister himself has been a pioneer of similar work in the rail sector. Here, I argue, there is an opportunity at an early stage for the Government to position themselves as leaders by investing early in scalable future-proofed charging networks that can be expanded as more electric vessels enter service. This is really important because the global electric shipping market is projected to grow rapidly from about $4.85 billion in 2025 to $18 billion by 2032, with compound annual growth rates ranging from 10% to 20% depending on the vessel segment.

Environmental regulations also apply to shipping. Stricter emission laws are pushing ship operators to adopt cleaner technologies, including batteries, especially on short sea and regional routes where charging infrastructure is more viable. There are technology advances to be supported. Improvements in lithium-ion battery energy density, lifespan and safety, along with falling battery costs, make electrification increasingly feasible for larger vessels and longer routes.

The geographic leaders such as Norway and China are at the forefront. Norway leads in battery ferries. China is launching fully electric coastal container ships and has certified more than 30 battery makers for marine use. There is hybridisation: many new car and truck carriers and some container ships use hybrid battery-LNG systems for port manoeuvring and emission reduction, with pure battery power still limited by current battery energy density.

The UK Government have the opportunity to build on this important document and outline a clear road map with specific objectives and milestones for the deployment of charging facilities. This strategic plan should include short-term goals, such as the number of ports equipped with basic facilities, and long-term targets for full-scale electrification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, it is back to the world of cold ironing. The UK Government have the opportunity to outline a clear road map with specific objectives and milestones for the deployment of charging facilities. A strategic plan should build on what we have been considering in this document to include short-term goals, such as the number of ports equipped with basic facilities, and long-term targets for full-scale electrification.

All the good intentions in this plan are meaningless unless we invest in grid upgrades. That means that the UK Government should collaborate with distribution network operators to upgrade grid connections now and ensure robust energy supplies. This may involve investing in new substations, transformers and high-voltage connections to handle the increased demand. Given the constraints on the public sector investment plans, this calls for a new PFI approach, one that balances risk between government and the private sector, learns the lessons from the past—not least over complex and bureaucratic contracts—and accelerates investment. In some ways, given its size and stand-alone features, it can be a test case for government, working with the Treasury and the private sector, as has been successfully done with the Thames Tideway project.

Finally, in all the work that we are doing, it is vital that we make our ports safe for employees, crews, passengers and the public.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, although I do not want to disagree with a word he said about electricity, does he agree that any policy must keep an open mind as to all new forms of energy, in particular methanol-powered ships using clean-burning methanol, which is increasingly becoming a viable alternative to heavy crude oil? The policy needs to keep its mind open.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I absolutely do have an open mind to that. We must not only be open-minded towards the challenges that are faced by battery technology and reducing the weight of batteries, for example, but look at all forms of clean energy that can benefit our international maritime trade. The point that my noble friend has made is absolutely accurate in that sense.

In my comments today, I wished to concentrate very much on the current direction of travel that is occurring in the industry because it is vital when it comes to designing a policy for ports and making sure that we are ready to take on the challenges that we already see embedded in European Union legislation. That is important for ports in Wales and on the west coast of the United Kingdom, for example, when it comes to ferries going to Ireland.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, let me just clarify that there should be only points of clarification in Grand Committee, not the reopening of an issue.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

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

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Snape. I endorse everything that he said about British Standard 8300. We had a long and extensive debate around floating bus stops and the difficulties for accessibility and inclusion as well as for safety, as the noble Lord rightly points out, for all prospective bus users, not least the blind and sight impaired. Does the Minister believe that current floating bus stops comply with BS 8300, and does the Minister believe that they should? Does he believe that local authorities should comply with BS 8300? What does the Minister see as the role for the British Standard, which clearly sets out a key phrase—although there is much in it—about being able to access the bus without having to cross a live cycle lane.

It is the lived experience for blind, sight-impaired and indeed all prospective bus passengers, with an increasing number of these floating bus stops being tragically laid out and commissioned up and down the country, to have to cross a live cycle lane or, worse still, to stop going out, to be effectively planned out of their local communities, a public realm that was previously accessible before the laying out of these so-called floating bus stops. So, I ask the Minister, when he comes to sum up, what is his view on BS 8300? Does he believe the Government should be very supportive of the work that British Standards do and should it not be that all local authorities and, indeed, all those in planning any public realm, when it comes to bus stops should be fully compliant with this very well thought through, very clear, very comprehensive BS 8300.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion 31A and declare my interest as chair of Amey, which works with councils to identify and capture data on road defects. My motion this evening, however, is on a completely separate issue. If I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, as much as I could see that all the praise he was lauding on my noble friend Lord Moylan with regard to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, was wholly appreciated on the Front Bench here, it was me who raised the subject when we were last engaged on it and I would say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Snape, knows, when it comes to safety in any aspect of life, praise where praise is due and collaboration where collaboration is needed, across party lines. I had no hesitation whatever in praising the unions for their response to the Piper Alpha disaster when I was Minister for Energy, and that has been a characteristic throughout all my political work.

Tonight, however, I am focusing on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, because I thank him and indeed the unions who supported him for first introducing this amendment. I think it is an important amendment, and I have to say that it beggars belief that Labour Party MPs in another place should be voting down the considered and well-argued wishes of the unions on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked me to name the union. I understand that the RMT did a lot of good work in drafting the original amendment.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

The fact is that the amendment was never actually debated in Committee because the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, could not be present. The fact is that it has now been adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who I suspect—I hope I can say this without upsetting him too much—is doing it more for political purposes than concern about women and children. The fact is that when men, women or children are assaulted on public transport, those assaults are recorded by the police, so there is no need for that particular amendment, which was never moved in the first place.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that this was never mentioned by my noble friend Lord Moylan. He did not even respond to it, if memory serves me correctly, when we did debate it, and, as he knows, it is perfectly proper and in order for anybody to move an amendment in Committee and people do so. I was intending to speak on it in any event, but, in his absence, the opportunity arose for me to move it because, sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, was not here for what I think was an extremely important issue.

We heard earlier this evening about the number of people who are on buses, as opposed to trains, and the safety of people on buses, particularly the vulnerable—not just the women and girls. I appreciate what the Minister said about the initiative that he is taking for women and girls, but it is also about the vulnerable, the disabled and the children. Many people face abuse and even violence in incidents late at night, in particular on buses, which I think should be a matter of concern to the Committee, which is why I raised it in the first place and why I believe that the unions were right to demand stronger sanctions. Late-night shifts expose drivers and staff to higher risks of violence, abuse and anti-social behaviour. Existing protections were seen by the unions, by the Cross-Benchers and indeed by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party as being inadequate. They all called—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Snape, would as well—for increased action against the night-time risk; against underreporting and poor follow-up; against the lack of a legal mandate. There is a need for accountability and, above all, for protection for vulnerable passengers.

The Minister in another place argued that the clause duplicates work done by the Home Office, and again the Minister this evening highlighted that point. However, I do not think that that bears comparison with what happens in the world of rail. The Railway Accident Investigation Branch, the RAIB, which does very good work, was introduced in order to recognise and to fill the void that existed in terms of what normally happens with police reporting. We needed to go further on the rail, and I believe we need to go further, as I am sure the unions did in helping with this amendment, when it comes to buses. According to the Unite survey last year, 93% of UK bus drivers experienced abuse, with 79% saying that there had been an increase over the previous year and many reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults. I think it is time for action and I think that this modest amendment can go at least one step in the right direction.

The Liberal Democrats were very supportive in another place as well. I will quote Steff Aquarone, who said:

“Here lies the point: at present, too many of those incidents go unrecorded, or are not handled consistently across different operators and regions. Clause 40 would put a stop to that, creating a clear and consistent duty that, if an operator is contracted to run services, it must record this data and share it with the local authority. That is the very least the public expect. Furthermore, the inclusion of a duty on a local transport authority to consult with relevant trade unions regarding issues of staff safety arising from the data collected is a good step. It will ensure that the data is used in practice and could lead to increased safety for staff and passengers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/25; col. 231.]

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the fact that there are so many amendments on the issue of electric vehicles and electric HGVs shows, to my mind, that the Government have slightly missed a trick in not using the Bill as an opportunity to do more to roll out EVs and EV lorries and small vans, and on door-to-door delivery mechanisms, particularly as the targets and the timelines are coming up so quickly.

I hope the amendment will cause the Government to reflect on that and that more progress can be made in this Bill, because it is a real opportunity. It would be remiss of the Government not to seize it, because it lies at the heart of what they are trying to do in the stated purposes of the Bill. I very much welcome the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady Pidgeon. I will speak particularly to Amendments 57 and 58, but I generally support all the amendments in this group.

Private cars are responsible for some 13% of the UK’s total CO₂ emissions—some 60.2 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent in 2023. They are the largest single source within the transport sector, which as a whole is responsible for around 30% of our emissions. Road vehicles, including cars, make up the vast majority of them. Emissions from cars have been declining since 2005, but we still have a long way to go if we are to hit our climate targets, and the time we have to make these changes is fast running out.

The take-up of electric cars is, thankfully, growing. As of mid-2025, around 4% of the approximately 34 million registered cars on UK roads are EVs, totalling about 1.3 million. This goes up to about 7% if we include hybrid vehicles. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that we have further to go and need to do more. Rolling out EVs and making them affordable and practical is a key part of our pathway to net zero. We need to work together as politicians to make sure that we can overcome all the practical obstacles we have heard about, including the cost of affording the car in the first place. We need to make sure that, when people own these electric cars, they can afford to charge them and get the benefits that come only from being able to do so via their home charging points—at night and on a proper tariff that saves them money. If we do not do those things, people will just not make that transition away from petrol and diesel cars in time. We need to make those pull factors work for people. It is really important.

We have seen price reductions in the vehicles, increased government support and the continuing rollout of national charging infrastructure. Taken together, all these measures are helping to change consumers’ choices. We welcome the other efforts that the Government are making: the UK now has 73,000 public charging points—that is welcome—and the charging network rollout is helping to overcome some of the real fears with these things. The projection is that we could have 25 million EVs on UK roads by 2040. The biggest barriers to the take-up of EVs commonly cited are a lack of charging infrastructure, range anxiety—although that technology is improving—and the higher costs of running the cars. This is what we have talked about—making sure that people can plug them in at home.

We really welcome these amendments. It is not good enough that people are facing £3,000 of costs to get this planning stuff done and are waiting 12 to 15 months simply to run a cable across the pavement. As my noble friend said, 40% of people do not have a driveway at home, so cannot do this. This really needs to happen.

I also welcome all the amendments on HGV charging. This is particularly important for last-mile delivery and smaller-scale vans so that we can continue to tackle the scourge of air pollution, which is so damaging to our young people in particular and is such a radical cause of asthma. Luckily, we are beginning to see changes in that space.

We welcome these amendments and we think this really needs to happen. We encourage the Government to go away and think about how they can do more to bring about a joined-up policy on these issues through this Bill. There is more that can be done through the proposed legislation to help bring about the changes that we all want.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I echo many of the comments that have been made, and I strongly welcome the intention from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in bringing this matter to the Committee towards the end of the day and considering the issue in depth through a range of amendments. She was admirably supported by my noble friend Lord Lansley. I think the Government will have taken on board the widespread enthusiasm for doing everything possible to move forward against some of the serious practical difficulties that exist.

--- Later in debate ---

On Amendment 71C on reinstatement, we all too often see that what should be a good road surface is pockmarked with various reinstatement works following utility works. Currently, utility providers need to provide only a two-year or three-year guarantee for their work. Moving to a five-year guarantee would ensure that reinstatement would be done to a far higher standard. As the Minister recognised earlier today, often these are of a very poor standard. This would also facilitate the monitoring and, ultimately, mean better roads and reduced need for maintenance—and be better for the environment. I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declared my interests in detail some two hours ago; they relate also to this amendment.

Regrettably, my noble friend Lady Coffey is, as the Committee knows, abroad. She offers her apologies and has asked me to speak to her Amendment 71A, an amendment regarding litter on the strategic road network. Essentially, her amendment asks the question: which roads are the responsibility of National Highways? Due to previous legislation, National Highways has responsibility for litter only on all motorways and some A roads. When my noble friend Lady Coffey was MP for Suffolk Coastal, she witnessed a real conflict in trying to get National Highways to work effectively with the council on litter on the A14. Most litter can be collected only when National Highways closes the road, which is often overnight and does not really fit in with local council practices on litter.

My noble friend’s points are valid. She is right that it is very difficult for National Highways and local authorities to co-ordinate and to get this work done efficiently. There are challenges in night-time operations as regards who is the principal contractor, who puts whom to work safely and who holds whom to account when litter picking needs to happen prior to grass cutting, road space management, customer complaint management, responses et cetera. Having the responsibility for litter across the entire strategic road network sit wholly with National Highways would, it seems, make complete sense.

But I know that the Minister has lengthy experience. With flat opex, the challenge of maintaining the SRN will be exacerbated. I am not completely sure that we have addressed the issue of whether sufficient moneys will be redirected from local authorities to National Highways to offset the additional service demands and risks. Litter picking under NLR is a schedule of rates activity, so it would require new and additional funding. It could not just be absorbed solely through efficiency gains.

Litter picking is a current necessity, but it is reasonable to consider it a waste of taxpayers’ money. Working as a community to dissuade littering behaviour through campaigns and technology should perhaps be the continued primary focus. How do we accelerate? How do we use technology? How do we change legislation? How can we affect the level of prosecution for littering—which then could raise moneys to fund litter-picking activity until the problem hopefully ceases to exist? With 100% strategic road network coverage with CCTV an intended outcome, and with the help of AI, I hope that we can move this industry challenge forward. I believe that we will.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, lane rental has worked well in London; it should be rolled out across the rest of England. National Highways should of course pick up its own litter. Street works should be guaranteed for a decent period. As ever, Conservatives have all the best ideas. I look forward to a short speech from the Minister in which he agrees.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

70: After Clause 47, insert the following new Clause—
“Water Services Regulation Authority: transfer of functions(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for the functions of the Water Services Regulation Authority relating to planning, development and infrastructure to be transferred to the Secretary of State.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to transfer Ofwat’s functions relating to planning, infrastructure and development to the Secretary of State.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 70. I see the Chief Whip on the Bishops’ Bench praying for a short introduction to this exceptionally important amendment.

My noble friend Lady Coffey seeks to transfer Ofwat’s functions relating to planning, infrastructure and development to the Secretary of State. Of course, she was ahead of her time; the Cunliffe report is now before the House and it will be debated at significant length. Whether the functions go to the Secretary of State or, as Cunliffe suggested, form part of the remit of a new regulator is a matter for your Lordships’ House in due course. We now face the biggest overhaul of water management and, above all, water regulation since privatisation. The Government have offered to fast-track five recommendations and I hope they will take my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment to heart when considering how best to move forward. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment, which is pertinent, as has just been mentioned, given the announcements this week, including that Ofwat will be abolished. The future of water regulation is clearly in flux. We on these Benches seek clarity on the way forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise: I prematurely terminated the journey of this part of the Bill. I will seek to be very brief.

The Government are committed to ensuring effective planning, development and management of water infrastructure. To that end, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs formed an Independent Water Commission. We oppose the amendment put forth by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to transfer Ofwat’s planning, infrastructure and development functions to the Secretary of State because it would pre-empt the results of the independent review. As mentioned, we will provide a full government response to the commission’s report in the autumn, setting out our priorities and timelines, and the Government will therefore introduce root and branch reform to revolutionise the water industry. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. It was powerful. It was mistaken in not accepting the amendment, of course, but at least he put it in the context of the important work that the Government have committed to undertake. In that context, I thank him for his contribution and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 70—with the rider that I wish a well-deserved, restful and enjoyable Recess above all to the Minister, who has worked extraordinarily hard throughout this Session, and to every Member of the Committee who has been present throughout the proceedings.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 58, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, regarding the recording and sharing of data about assaults on the buses.

For the record, I declare my interest as chair of Amey, as set out in the register. Our involvement with buses is primarily collaboration with councils, such as Kent County Council, to use bus CCTV cameras to identify and capture data on road defects, such as potholes and cracks, to improve overall road maintenance. To avoid any conflict, as the Minister knows, I have restricted myself to speaking only on matters that impact transport which are outside any commercial involvement. It was for that reason that I spoke earlier during the Session in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in her advocacy of long-standing issues that face disabled people on transport, particularly trains, about which I feel very strongly.

I am grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, whose knowledge of transport issues is greater than that of anyone else in this House—even more so than my noble friend Lord Moylan—and whose advocacy of reform and improvement from a position of unparalleled professional expertise makes the transport debates in your Lordships’ House among the best in Parliament. With that glowing tribute, I hope that he will support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley.

From my experience in another place during my years representing the people of Lewisham East, I know that assaults on the vulnerable, particularly women, on buses, especially at night, was a serious issue, as evidenced in representations made to me in my constituency advice bureaux. These incidents ranged from verbal harassment to physical attacks. To this day, such attacks continue to significantly impact women’s sense of safety on public transportation, especially at night.

It is unacceptable that, in this day and age, the vulnerable, the elderly and women still feel vulnerable to harassment on the buses. Yet when incidents happen, the levels of reporting vary by location and factors such as time of day, route and bus occupancy. I accept and welcome the fact that many bus operators have implemented measures to increase safety, such as installing surveillance cameras on some buses and in stations, employing more visible staff and increasing security patrols—although many drivers are, understandably, protected and out of sight from many passengers. I welcome the fact that promoting awareness campaigns to encourage the reporting of incidents takes place.

However, I believe—and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Woodley—that more can be done. Few victims know how to report assaults, whether the bus companies have established hotlines or whether support services exist specifically for this purpose. Ignorance creates fear. Relevant signage is too often close to non-existent. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, is right to seek to add to the law to protect individuals from harassment and violence in public places. There is all too little, somewhat sporadic, documented evidence of assaults on women on buses in the UK, with various studies, reports and statistics seeking to highlight the issue.

Over the years, I have noticed that the British Transport Police reports take this seriously, and that some of its statistics include data on incidents of sexual offences. The Home Office releases some reports on crime in England and Wales, including some statistics on violent crimes and sexual assault, but without this legislative backing. Groups such as Stop Street Harassment and the Everyday Sexism Project collect testimonies and survey data from women about their experiences of harassment on public transport, providing qualitative evidence on the issue. Of course, the media can help, and research studies have examined the nature and impact of public transport harassment.

The first part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, is commendable. It goes further than anything on the statute book to date. If passed, as I believe it should be, bus operators would be required by law to record and register all data about assaults and violent behaviour on their buses, and local transport authorities would consult unions about the data. This is a Government who support the unions as a growth sector and therefore I hope that there will be support across all parties for the amendment. In return, as set out in the second part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, the unions could add their voice to help create a legal deterrent against such incidents, which continue to damage the confidence of the elderly and all vulnerable groups who travel on the buses and affect the safety of women.

I hope the Minister will agree to this small, yet important, change in the law. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, I shall move the amendment when it is called.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 58 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading.

The Government have an admirable ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. I believe this amendment would aid the Government to achieve this by ensuring bus operators recorded and shared all data about assaults and violent behaviour that had taken place on their buses. I focus my remarks particularly on women, as the West Yorkshire Combined Authority conducted a survey which found that only 41% of women feel safe catching a bus at night, compared to 68% of men. This fear means that women are unfairly forced to pay for taxis to be reassured of their own safety. Women have even spoken of questioning whether their clothes are suitable so as not to attract unwanted attention when using the bus service. No woman should have to be fearful for her safety on public transport. The noble Lord’s amendment would go some way to encouraging bus operators to tackle the issue of violence and harassment, and, importantly, give people the confidence to come forward and report incidents on the bus.

In 2021, TfL launched a campaign that sought to end the normalisation of abuse on its services by encouraging people to text the British Transport Police. It stated that it wanted to make it clear

“that it is never acceptable and that the strongest possible action will always be taken”.

We cannot continue with a situation where more than half of women under 35—including me—decide to drive or get a taxi instead of getting a bus or train because they fear crime or harassment. The bus service should be available for all to use safely and free from fear. I fully commend the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on his amendment and I hope the Government will back it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

58: After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause—
“Recording and sharing data about assaults(1) Any bus operator which has entered into a contract to operate a franchising scheme or enhanced partnership plan must record all data about assaults and violent behaviour that have taken place on their buses and share that data with their Local Transport Authority.(2) Local Transport Authorities must consult relevant trade unions regarding any issues of staff safety arising from the data collected under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require bus operators to record all data about assaults and violent behaviour on their buses and LTAs to consult unions about that data.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I place on record my thanks to the Minister. Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, which I spoke to, is an important measure to address assaults and violent behaviour on the buses, especially against women, and provides a valuable role for the trade unions, so I seek to test the will of the House.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the two noble Baronesses but actually it is not. It makes me so angry that, week after week, they come to this House and tell us about the problems they have. When they do that they are telling us about not just their problems but the problems being encountered by tens of thousands of people, day in, day out. My Amendment 39 is about the passenger standards authority. If anything demonstrates why we need a passenger standards authority, it is the experience that has just been outlined.

The passenger standards authority is part of a package that will come later and is not part of the Bill, but I want to raise it here because passenger standards are the reason for the Bill and why we are here. As we have been hearing over the past week or so, a combination of fragmentation within the industry, poor tendering and inadequate enforcement has led us to the situation that we are in now, but it seems to me that there is something about an organisational culture that is the complete reverse of being passenger-focused.

One of the problems we are facing is that the way that we measure the performance of train operating companies is legalistic and algorithmic; so on one side of it, you are all right and no action will be taken, but step a little further and action will be taken. For passengers, that feels arbitrary. I would like to hear from the Minister how the passenger standards authority is going to work. How will it hold the operator to account in a way that so demonstrably has not been done in the past? Will it be taking a similar, very measured approach, or can it really get into the nitty-gritty of what makes passenger journeys work?

Of course, that includes punctuality, reliability, ticketing and accessibility, but there is a bunch of other things, as we have heard from noble Lords, such as the provision of consistent, understandable information; trains that are clean and properly staffed and on which people feel safe; some sort of functioning wifi; and the ability to get a cup of tea on a long journey. These things are all part of the passenger experience and should not be that difficult.

Is the passenger standards authority going to have the ability to represent passengers right across the piece? Will it be genuinely about driving improvement, not just constantly having niggles with train operators about whether they are not quite good enough or not quite bad enough? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.

I support Amendment 17, in the names of four eminent Members of your Lordships’ House. I hope that I will be forgiven if I also say that I declare the interest of having worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on these issues and duty of care and accessibility for many decades. In fact, we go back to the point when, as Minister for Sport, I approached the International Olympic Committee to ask it to consider ensuring that all the facilities used by a host city for the Olympic Games should immediately be used thereafter for the Paralympians. That was not just so that we could look at athletes and focus on their abilities rather than their disabilities, but to change the mindset of the population. A lot of what we have been talking about this evening is about changing that mindset. It is about changing attitudes: we cannot simply put in a statement of standards and allow it to gather dust; we must make sure that that statement of standards changes attitudes.

The Government have a great opportunity to include a statement of standards in this legislation. No party has a greater interest in accessibility than any other party. We all passionately agree across the Chamber about the importance of responding to the proposers of the amendment we are debating. This Bill is an opportunity to recognise that and move forward to a new level of recognition and understanding about what should be in a statement of standards.

All train operating companies should be committed to providing infrastructure and rail services to the highest standard of accessibility—that is the starting position—and customer service for all customers and stakeholders. There should be accessible travel policies outlining their approach to providing assistance to customers with restricted mobility or who require assistance, including those with visual or auditory impairments, learning disabilities and non-visible disabilities. This policy should be placed in a statement of standards and should be aligned to other legislation, such as the Equality Act and the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998.

Passenger Assist is a national system supported by all train operating companies at the moment. I hope it will be supported in future, because it is vital that we arrange passenger assistance for disabled customers and those with restricted mobility. At present, national technical specifications for interoperability define technical and operational standards to ensure the interoperability of trains, not least into the European railway system, and must include accessibility standards for new stations or major work on existing stations. Let us embed that into a statement of standards. The Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations ensure that vehicles used as rail replacement services are accessible. All involved should implement these standards for all new infrastructure, in addition to adopting innovation and best practice.

Level boarding is an incredibly important issue. All new train fleets being introduced should have a slightly lowered floor height compared with typical trains in the UK and should be provided with a retractable step to close the gap between the train and the platform. This would mean that all passengers should be able to board and alight without assistance, at all platforms, once the long-running transformation in this country is complete and all platforms have been brought into alignment. Let us embed that into a statement of standards.

I shall touch on two other things. The first is persons with reduced mobility national technical specification notices. At present, NTSNs define the regulatory requirements for infrastructure and trains, to ensure accessibility for people with reduced mobility. They include standards for the design, construction and maintenance of railway systems to make them accessible. Braille and prismatic signage at our major stations should be an essential feature and should comply with the PRM NTSNs.

On braille signs, let us take the situation in Wales. Braille signs should be in both languages; they should be in Welsh as well as English, aligning, in that case, with the Welsh Language Act’s commitment to preserving the language. This initiative not only supports the ethos of that Act but enhances accessibility for individuals with impaired vision. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will agree with that.

Finally, there should be station design toolkits specialising in wayfinding requirements and colour schemes, to ensure consistency and accessibility. That includes principles for signage, fonts and colours, to create a high-quality station wayfinding system.

This Bill provides a unique opportunity to include a comprehensive suite of accessibility reforms and to introduce a standardised and consistent approach to accessibility standards across the railway network. All of us across the Chamber agree on the importance of the subject. Here we have a real opportunity to have a statement of standards of the highest possible quality enshrined in legislation. I look to the Minister and the Government to at least take that away and think about it as an important step forward that would gather support across the Chamber and respond to the worrying concerns that have been expressed by the noble Baronesses in Committee tonight.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very depressing debate—listening to the terrible problems that many noble Lords have had in using the rail network. It is wonderful that they have been able to expose them so widely. We have heard about them before, but it is depressing that we are in 2024 and they have not been solved already. All this could have been done years ago, without legislation and without any change. It just needs somebody to do it and to take responsibility for it. So the list of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is very good—all the lists are good. There are three things that I hope my noble friend will take forward.

There are three different elements to the GBR responsibility. One is the infrastructure—platforms. One is the trains—level boarding. The other is services—what people do or do not get at the stations. Most important is that the passenger standards authority, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, must be not only comprehensive, strong and fast but independent.

We have to think about how you can be independent of the Government and the railways, and still have credibility. I hope everybody can, but the Government will have to accept something that is independent, rather than something which takes backdoor instructions from Ministers who say, “Don’t get too strong on this, because it’s too expensive”.

We will have to watch this for a long time, but I congratulate other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and exposed this, which should have been exposed a very long time ago.