Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I want to intervene briefly. I declare my interests. I am a holder of a current private pilot’s licence and a former director of one of our airports. This is a particularly interesting set of measures. I want to ask just a couple of questions and point out one or two things.

Of course, we all welcome the improvement in technology. Technology has come to the aid of, and provides a much safer environment for, those who pilot and operate planes, the airport operators themselves and, of course, passengers. But we are currently going through an enormous shortage of commercial pilots. Training is rightly being more elaborated, but I wonder whether we have sufficient facilities for training pilots in this country. I know it is slightly off beam, but my understanding is that a number of the major operators—I think easyJet is one—are having to train their pilots elsewhere because of a lack of training facilities here in this country. That is rather worrying and not good for this country’s economy. Will the Minister make a comment on that?

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the instrument allowing general aviation, in which I partake,

“to make use of instrument flight rules”,

which have not been available before. I think we are all aware of the fact that this country is enormously dense when it comes to flying, and there is a lot of danger, particularly in a congested area such as the south-east of England. I published a report of an inquiry I did on lower-airspace controls because of this issue. Most of us involved in general aviation do not operate under the IFR; we operate mostly on a visual basis, although some of us do have instrument capabilities. This extension, referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum but to which I cannot find further reference—perhaps I am not looking sufficiently well at the text—does not seem to have been elaborated on much. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment further on that, perhaps after taking advice.

Other than that, I must say that I am very pleased that we are producing these regulations and maintaining our international standing in aviation.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, unlike my two noble friends, I do not have a pilot’s licence—I will not respond to the shortage referred to by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope by applying for one—but I was caught, as I went through the document, by Regulation 4(21). It says:

“‘fuel scheme’ means a scheme for the use of fuel or energy that is a basic fuel scheme, a basic fuel scheme with variations or an individual fuel scheme”.

That is amplified in the Explanatory Note, where apparently energy is added to fuel. It says:

“The concept of ‘energy’ is a new addition throughout the amendments to allow for the use of non-hydrocarbon-based fuels in future”.


On page 7 of the impact assessment, in paragraph 15, we have this explanation:

“In addition, this proposal also introduces the concept of alternative fuel or energy sources other than hydrocarbon-based fuels. Without this change, UK operators will not be able to take advantage of technological advances in the production of alternative propulsion sources for aviation”.


COP 29 is under way at the moment, and I understand that the airline industry is committed to net zero by 2050. It is therefore quite important that we know a bit more about these alternative propulsion sources. My understanding is that sustainable aviation fuels are already available, but is it the case that up to now it has not been legally possible to use these SAFs, because we have not made the change yet and without this change UK operators will not be able to take advantage of technological advances? My understanding is that Virgin Atlantic is trialling plant-based fuels and that recycling cooking oil is one of the alternatives. Is it the case that at the moment one cannot blend sustainable aviation fuel with conventional hydrocarbons but after this instrument we will be able to? Can the Minister say a bit more about the progress being made? Net zero by 2050 is quite a tough target because the aviation industry is one of the tougher ones in which to remove hydrocarbons, so I would appreciate hearing a bit more about what the current position is—the legality of using SAF at the moment—and the prospects of hitting our target by 2050.

Shadow Great British Railways: Chair Appointment

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I should concentrate on my noble friend’s right description of the chaos of the last 30 years. The railway is not functioning properly; far too much of the time of everybody concerned with managing the railway is spent on blame attribution and contractual negotiation, and far too little is spent on delivering a decent service for passengers and freight and making the railway do what it should do for the economy. That is what the Government’s policy is designed to change.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, following the privatisation of the railways, in which I played a modest part, decades of decline in passenger traffic was reversed. Once the dead hand of the Treasury was removed from investment, there was fresh investment in new rolling stock and modernising the stations, passenger fares were pegged at RPI minus one—a policy reversed by the Government adorned by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—passenger safety improved, and we developed a market in train operating companies to replace the monopoly of British Rail. What was not to like about that?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Since Covid, the railway has got only four-fifths of its previous income. The train operating companies are now, in effect, flat contractors to government and their owners are unable to take much, if any, financial risk. The service to passengers is not as good as it should be, and the Government’s policy is designed to make that significant change.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, from listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I think there is a misunderstanding about what the Government are trying to do. As I understand it as a humble Back-Bencher, we are trying to get rid of the franchising system because, as it is, it does not help us to run a railway in the way we want to. In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said that one of the points is to have a simplified fare system that will greatly raise the prospects of increasing passenger revenue and passenger use of the railway, because the fare system is an obstacle to that. We cannot do that while we have the franchise system, so we have to get rid of the franchise system.

If there is any fault in what is happening at the moment, it lies on the opposite side of the Chamber and with the Transport Ministers who gave operators such as Avanti the very loose targets that they have to meet. I advocate that we should be tougher with Avanti, have it in every month, and if things have not improved, we should take the risk of taking the franchise off it and saying, “See you in court”. That would be my approach, but the problem is what the Conservatives have left us with, and that is very difficult to solve. I do not support this amendment, which would result just in extending the existing system.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad I let the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, speak before me, because I listened very carefully to what he said at Second Reading, when he made a powerful speech in favour of pragmatism. I think that was an expression that he used; I see him nodding in assent. Pragmatism is the reason behind Amendment 10. It is a question of whether we let ideology trump pragmatism. The amendment is very similar to one I proposed in Committee. It is less ambitious—the one I proposed in Committee would have allowed the franchise to be renewed for a longer period than 12 months—and therefore one that is it easier for the Minister to accept.

There is an additional reason that has not been mentioned so far, which is that there will be pressure within the Minister’s own department to absorb the franchises as they fall due. I think his department would welcome the flexibility under Amendment 10 to enable an existing franchise to be extended for a further 12 months, but no longer. The Minister will get his way: all the train operating companies will be nationalised and all the franchises will come to an end. What we are arguing about is some flexibility. If a franchise is being run perfectly competently, if the existing company would be happy to run on for another 12 months, and if the department is having to recruit more civil servants to absorb the existing ones, I honestly cannot see why the Minister has set his face against Amendment 10. If there is the word “resist” in his brief, perhaps he will reflect on whether a little bit of flexibility would be in order.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I expressed some sympathy with this amendment, or an amendment similar to it, in Committee. Without repeating anything I said in Committee, I put it to my noble friend the Minister again—having said one thing, I now contradict myself—that it does not really make any sense to terminate instantly or as soon as it runs out, which is pretty close to instantly, a franchise such as Greater Anglia, which has generated enormous public support for the efficient way that it has run its train services, or c2c, the line from Liverpool Street to Southend, which recently scored a 94% approval rate as far as its passengers were concerned, although I imagine they, like most other sensible people in this country, think the franchising system has been pretty disastrous for the railway as a whole. Coincidentally, those two franchises run out fairly quickly. Although the noble Lord who speaks for the Opposition would not mention specific franchises for some reason, I will. I have been tormented by Avanti since the last Government were unwise to give it the franchise around 2017 and take it off Virgin, for no apparent reason. The last Government then gave Avanti a nine-year extension, despite all the complaints from both sides of your Lordships’ House. Does it really make any sense to terminate franchises that have enormous support from the travelling public, two of which I have just mentioned, and not take any action for another few years—about seven years or so—for companies such as Avanti? Surely there is some flexibility here that my noble friend could press.

If there are good reasons to terminate franchises then surely those reasons, good or bad, have been realised as far as Avanti’s performance is concerned. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us exactly how much it would cost in public funds to dispose of Avanti’s services and how the contracts were drawn up and interpreted in the first place, when a company like that can get away with the shoddy service that it provides daily.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Scott of Needham Market, for their amendments in this group—Amendment 2 and Amendment 10 respectively. The amendments seek to test the Government’s approach of transferring services as existing contracts expire. I also thank my noble friend Lord Liddle for saying that the intention is to get rid of franchises and for explaining why. He is right. I should also say that I and the Government do not believe that we should either pay compensation for termination or keep paying fees to owning groups of train operating companies when we do not need to.

I am happy to begin with a reassurance about the Government’s position. We will not hesitate to take decisive action if Avanti, CrossCountry or any other operator’s poor performance means that the contractual conditions that allow for early termination are met. The contracts we have inherited from the previous Government make it far too hard to get rid of an underperforming operator, but if we have the opportunity to put passengers out of their misery by ending a failing operator’s contract early and bringing their services into public ownership, we will do just that. In those circumstances, we will not wait for those contracts to expire.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, asked whether the public sector operator will have the capacity to take in services from a failing operator whose contract has been terminated early, at the same time as other planned transfers. I reassure them that current contracts allow sufficient flexibility to accommodate this. All but two of the current contracts with private operators give the Secretary of State significant discretion to select an expiry date within a range of possible dates specified in each contract. The Secretary of State simply has to give the outgoing operator a minimum of 12 weeks’ notice of expiry. This means that if a contract can be terminated early for poor performance—be it by Avanti, CrossCountry or any other operator—the Secretary of State will be able to adjust the planned expiry dates of other contracts if necessary to ensure that the failing operator’s services can be transferred as quickly as possible without overwhelming the public sector operator. Of course, we also need a programme of return that is reassuringly steady for the good management of the operations as they come back into public ownership. I hope those observations will be sufficient to persuade the noble Baronesses not to press their Amendment 10.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, my previous comments address the first part of his Amendment 2. The Government will not hesitate to exercise its contractual rights if an operator’s poor performance means that the conditions for early termination are met. The Secretary of State, my noble friend Lady Blake of Leeds and I have all made the Government’s position on the matter very clear and on the record. There is no need for a statutory obligation to cover this point.

The noble Lord knows very well that I cannot accept the remainder of his amendment because it would substantially delay the programme of transfers to public sector operation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, thanks to decisions taken by the previous Government, the two most poorly performing operators currently have the longest contracts, with terms that make it very difficult to terminate them early for poor performance. I cannot say quite what the cost is, but I will write to my noble friend Lord Snape to tell him the rough quantum. In fact, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would mean it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to exercise any contractual break clause, as defined in his amendment, until after the worst-performing operator’s contract had ended. That could be as late as October 2027, so it is difficult to see this as anything other than a wrecking amendment. I hope the noble Lord will prove me wrong by withdrawing it.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, can he just clarify something that he said? Is it the case that under new Section 30A inserted by Clause 2(3) he has the flexibility already to renew two of the franchises mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, by using that particular paragraph in the Bill—namely, that he

“is satisfied that it will not be reasonably practicable to provide”

the services in any other way?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Is that the two worst-performing franchises or two others?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Any franchises. Can he use that section to renew the satisfactory franchises, because it would “not be reasonably practicable” to do so otherwise, and take them in-house?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his intervention. I think he is right, but he will forgive me if I consider it further and write to him.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

9: Clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“30ZA Annual report of public operator liabilities(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, within six months of the day on which this Act comes into force, and on each anniversary of that date thereafter, a report on the public sector financial liabilities arising from the award of public service contracts to public sector companies under subsection 30(1A).(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include details of rolling stock leasing liabilities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report examining the impact of train company rolling stock liabilities transferring into the public sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 9 in my name would require an annual report on public operator liabilities. This might sound rather a dry subject with which to lead the last group on Report, but it is an important one, as it has the potential to totally disrupt the Government’s ambitions for Great British Railways. I begin by thanking the Minister for the meeting that we had last week with the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. He listened patiently to my concerns and was able to allay some of them—though not, I am afraid, this one.

This amendment has grown in prominence since last week’s Budget with its clear fiscal rules, and these were needed to give confidence to the markets that the Government could borrow the substantial sums needed to fund their expenditure; we will debate all that on Monday. In a nutshell, my concern is that, if liabilities which are currently off the Government’s books cease to be off balance sheet, we will revert to the position when I was Transport Secretary, with transport bidding for investment against schools, hospitals and defence and always missing out because of political priorities.

I believe the noble Lord has conceded the risk of this happening, because he has said repeatedly that it will be for the Office for National Statistics to decide in the future how GBR liabilities impact the public sector balance sheet and, specifically, public sector net debt. However, it simply cannot be prudent for the Government to embark on a programme of nationalisation without fully understanding the financial consequences of the ONS classifying GBR as “central government” and without taking the necessary precautions.

We can have a shot at what the ONS will do, because it has stated that in circumstances such as GBR it would run what is called the market body test, and we know that GBR, as the Government envisage it being structured, would fail that test. The integration of track and train within a single entity, as set out clearly in Labour’s Getting Britain Moving document, will mean that GBR will fail the ONS market body test, meaning that its liabilities will be consolidated into the department’s accounts. The Minister has argued previously that the position will not be different from where we are now, but it will be. The creation of GBR as a permanent public monopoly will create a completely different system, which will change the way in which the ONS categorises expenditure.

The Labour document is clear that GBR will be a “single employer”. If so, it will simply fail the market test and its accounts will be classified as “central government”, rather than a public corporation, as LNER is currently. The accounts will then be required to be consolidated into DfT’s accounts, like other bodies that fail the market test, and then classified as “central government”. Crucially, these different accounting treatments will make investment, for example, in rolling stock harder, as it will be in competition with other demands for public investment. The Minister has made it clear that GBR will use its purchasing power to commission new rolling stock through the roscos: rolling stock that will then be leased to GBR. He stated:

“GBR will enable a longer-term view of the rolling stock market, and it will reduce the margins it needs to make”.—[Official Report, 23/10/24; col. 736.]


Those long-term liabilities, totalling potentially some £15 billion, will score immediately on the Government’s balance sheet, increasing national debt, even if the money to manufacture the trains comes from the roscos and is raised on the capital markets.

What I hope the Minister has done—and if he has done it, no one would be happier than me—is get an undertaking from the Treasury that, if the ONS so classifies GBR debt, the Treasury will ensure that the DfT is insulated from that decision. He may have such a letter in his breast pocket. If he has not, we know what is likely to happen because it happened to Network Rail, which was reclassified by the ONS in 2014. The Minister said at our meeting that there was scope for economies at Network Rail when it was reclassified, and I am sure he was right. But those measures were never going to compensate for all the consequences. Network Rail had to divest £1.8 billion by selling property assets; it had to defer renewal works; it had to postpone completion dates; and it had to renegotiate a lot of contracts. Do we honestly want that to happen to GBR?

So, in a nutshell, I am concerned at the gamble the Government are taking with the future of the railways by going back to the pre-privatisation system, where Ministers will have to compete against other spending departments for what the railways need. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I have one very brief question for the Minister, following the warnings by the noble Lord, Lord Young. Have the Government looked at this from the point of view not just of what I would call the finished product of the nationalised railway system but of how the categorisation of a mixed economy would work? We, the nation, will be in a situation of a mixed, some-and-some economy for a significant number of years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for tabling Amendment 9 and for our productive meeting the other day. I recognise that there is a question of whether public ownership will lead to certain liabilities moving on to the public sector balance sheet and therefore counting towards the public sector net debt. I cannot speculate about future balance sheet treatments and impacts as those will always depend on classification decisions that are a matter for the independent Office for National Statistics.

What I can say is that four train companies are already owned by DOHL, including LNER for six years and Northern for four, and the position has not changed so far. The Office for National Statistics recently considered the classification of TransPennine and concluded that it should remain classified as a public non-financial corporation. The mixed economy that we already have is relevant to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the categorisation of a mixed economy. We are going to be there over the next several years as the train operations come back one by one.

It has been suggested in debate that, if liabilities move on to the public sector balance sheet, that would affect public sector net debt and unduly constrain future investment. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to events at Network Rail after it was reclassified, many of which I witnessed when I went there in 2015. In fact, a large number of the things that happened were really good. The organisation was not on the public balance sheet. It had spent an enormous amount of money: when I turned up in July 2015, it had debt of £54 billion, roughly equivalent to the whole of New Zealand’s national debt. With the last chief executive and the present one, we have put it into great order and reduced its expenditure. It has reduced capital expenditure too, which I think was also wise. The list of enhancements that it was proposing to carry out were beyond its capability then, and beyond the funding of even the unlimited amounts of debt that it could call on.

Nevertheless, the existing publicly owned train operators are the driving force behind the current multibillion-pound pipeline of new rolling stock orders. Network Rail is still investing in the railway infrastructure, and it shows that public ownership need not be a barrier to investment.

Looking more broadly across the public services, noble Lords may have seen that, alongside the Budget, the Chancellor announced changes to the fiscal rules to measure government debt in a way that recognises the need to better support capital investment. This Government recognise the pressing need to rebuild our economy and invest in our public services after years of underinvestment.

It might be helpful to provide the noble Lord, Lord Young, with some specific reassurance, and I can reassure him that we are not seeking to close the door on private investment. Where there are genuine opportunities for private investment—which, for example, might well be, and in the future should be, in relation to property development around stations or car park investment—we would expect Great British Railways to work with relevant local authorities and the private sector to promote these opportunities. I reassure the noble Lord that securing appropriate private investment will be an absolute priority for this Government. I hope that provides him with enough reassurance to withdraw the amendment.

Next, I will address Amendments 18 and 19 in turn. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for these amendments. Amendment 18 would require the Secretary of State to lay a Statement before Parliament within three months of the Bill’s enactment. The Statement would need to set out the Government’s intentions concerning the terms, conditions and pay rates of staff of existing train operating companies as they transfer to become employees of public sector companies.

At that stage, it would be a very simple Statement. The Government fully expect that the TUPE regulations will apply, preserving employees’ existing contractual terms and conditions as they transfer from private operators to subsidiaries of directly operated holdings, in the same way as they have done in previous transfers. I can also confirm that the Secretary of State’s contracts with public sector companies would ensure that staff could continue to be members of the railways pension scheme. That being the case, there is no need for a further Statement of the kind mandated by the amendment.

The noble Lord asked what the Government intend should happen to pay, terms and conditions in the period after employees have transferred to a public sector operator. Although this is beyond the scope of the amendment the noble Lord has tabled, I am happy to address the question by saying three things.

First, public ownership under this Bill does not give rise to any imperative to harmonise or otherwise amend staff terms and conditions. Decisions about any such changes are for the future. In contrast to the previous Government’s approach, we would expect to discuss these matters openly and constructively with the workforce and their representatives before settling on any specific proposals. If the noble Lord was serious in his proposal, he would be able to tell me, for example, that the previous Government consulted the staff of LNER when it was transferred into the public sector. I think he will find that they did not. I am not going to speculate about the outcome of any such future discussions.

Secondly, resolving the long-standing disputes with the rail unions, as we have done and are doing, clears the way for vital workforce reform to modernise our railways and do away with outdated working practices. We do not need to wait for Great British Railways to start this essential work—although we have needed to clear up a number of disputes, including one so long-standing that it has been a dispute since 2015—and we will do this by working with the workforce, not against them.

Thirdly, looking further ahead to Great British Railways, the overall structure for GBR and the mechanics of how staff will transfer into it are still to be decided. We will want to make sure that GBR retains and treats fairly the committed and talented staff who are essential to keep the railway running for its customers. We will have more to say about this when we publish our proposals for the railways Bill.

Amendment 19 would require another report, this time on the impact of national insurance employer contributions on the operational costs of public sector companies. I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that employer national insurance contributions are just one relatively small component of train operators’ overall costs—less than 2.5% of total costs in this financial year. Furthermore, other significant costs, such as diesel and electricity, are volatile. It would therefore take significant resource to routinely report on all these different costs, which are subject to change all the time.

This reporting would add little value, particularly when any national insurance costs incurred by a DfT-contracted operator are simply paid to another part of government. Public ownership will make no difference to the net cost to government of the relevant train operators’ employer national insurance contributions; the Government are already both the funder and the recipient of these.

Having said that, I will be pleased to provide an estimate of any impact as soon as I am able to. At that point, I will happily write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the House Library. In the light of this, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not to press his amendments.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the last debate and possibly the last speech on Report, I commend the Minister for the patient way he has dealt with the proceedings on Report, drawing on his unique knowledge of the industry we are debating. It has been a pleasure to watch the contrasting debating styles of him and the more flamboyant style of my noble friend Lord Moylan.

I welcome what the Minister said about private investment, but I have to point out that the Bill specifically precludes the sort of investment we saw with the franchise. For example, Chiltern widened single track into double track and built new railway stations. That sort of investment by a train operating company is specifically precluded by the Bill.

On the substance of my concern, he said right at the beginning that there is a question about how the liabilities will be classified. He then sheltered behind the well-known phrase that he “could not speculate” about what the ONS will do. I think there is a distinction between the present position with LNER within the department, with relatively short-term liabilities for rolling stock, and the position with a 20-year liability and GBR. I remind the Minister that, in order to avoid Network Rail being reclassified as public sector body, Treasury Ministers specifically asked—this is under the Labour Government—other Ministers not to criticise the salaries of Network Rail for fear that the ONS would classify it as a public body.

Having said that, the Minister has gone as far as I could have expected him to. He does not have in his breast pocket a letter from the Treasury giving him a guarantee against the consequences of reclassification, but against the good-natured reply he gave me, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 34 in my name, which would allow franchises to be led by local authorities. It goes a little further than one of the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Moylan, who wanted partnership boards, and is more in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Snape, wants to do with his Amendment 43.

We need to be clear about what new Section 30C does. Basically, it says that the only people who can run a railway in future are a public sector company owned by a Secretary of State. Unless the Minister is going to repeal that in the forthcoming Bill, it means that for ever and a day, as we have heard, we are going to have a central monopoly for all franchised rails.

My noble friend went to the Labour Party document on transport to inspire his speech. I looked at the document published in March this year, Power and Partnership: Labour’s Plan to Power Up Britain, which pledged to devolve new powers over transport, employment support and energy out of Whitehall. That was followed up by the manifesto promising “landmark devolution legislation” to transfer power out of Westminster and into communities across the UK. So we could have expected the first pieces of legislation in the new Parliament to fulfil that ambition of devolving power out of Westminster, particularly in the field of transport, where there has been significant devolution of powers in rail, as we heard in earlier speeches. Like my noble friend, I was surprised to read in the letter from the Minister—and I got a slightly different wording—that:

“The Government has no current plan to devolve responsibility for further services to local authorities”.


As we have heard, Transport for London has taken over services that used to be run by British Rail, and then by South Western Railway and the other TOCs, and it now runs the Overground. I think that has worked well, and it has enabled TfL to integrate the Overground with the Underground and provide a better service to Londoners.

Outside London, many local authorities have successfully introduced light rail lines. There are 11 light rail systems in the UK. Manchester Metrolink is probably the best known, with 99 stops and 64 miles of track, run by Transport for Greater Manchester. We have also heard about the smaller West Midlands Metro, run by Transport for West Midlands. So local authorities are perfectly capable of building, maintaining and running serious rail systems.

The Minister’s statement seems to preclude the sort of arrangement that works well in London from happening anywhere else. All that local authorities are promised in the letter is a statutory role governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network, but not taking it over and integrating it with the system that they already have.

I think the Minister is in some trouble on this issue. We have had a powerful speech from his noble friend Lord Snape, and there is a feeling in the Committee as a whole that the commitment to devolution is simply inconsistent with new Section 30C as it stands. I do not think this is the landmark legislation that we were promised, so I hope the Minister thinks again about the implications of new Section 30C.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 36 in this group, which has exactly the same purpose as the amendments from my noble friend on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who has just spoken. All their points and those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, demonstrate the potential value and benefit of having the legislative opportunity for publicly owned companies responsible to devolved authorities to be able to run rail services. If we do not have this, it can be only a public sector company owned by the Secretary of State. I was going to instance examples, but I think we have had so many that it is very clear.

The only difference between my amendment and others is the kind of authority appropriate to own a company which runs rail services. I fixed on mayoral combined authorities simply because of the relative capacity and their importance in the Government’s devolution agenda, and because it might commend that thought to the Government.

From my own experience, not least from being a Member of Parliament in a mayoral combined authority, I think it is increasingly important for the Government to recognise—which clearly they have put at the front of their argument—that the co-ordination of the railways is of the first importance, including ticketing, timetabling, provision of services and so on. In many of these places, as was amply demonstrated by earlier speeches, the co-ordination of transport services and of transport with planning and spatial development is equally important. If the Government go down the path of central control by the Secretary of State for every aspect of rail services, I am afraid that they will severely impede, in many significant areas of the country, transport and spatial development being conducted in the way that we would prefer it to be.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

42: Clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“30D Annual report of public operator liabilities(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, within six months of the day on which the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 is passed, and annually thereafter, a report on the public sector financial liabilities arising from the award of public service contracts to public sector companies under section 30(1A).(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include details of—(a) rolling stock leasing liabilities;(b) pension scheme liabilities;(c) property leasing liabilities;(d) other financial liabilities such as debt.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report examining the impact of train company liabilities transferring onto the public sector balance sheet under nationalisation.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this is not a great time to address the rather arcane subject of what is and what is not public expenditure. But it is absolutely vital to the future of the railways, and this group of amendments is one of the most important in the whole Bill.

Any Government have limits on how much they can borrow, and we discovered two years ago what happens if a Government go through those limits. Within those limits, there is fierce competition between spending Ministers for access to borrowing to fund their projects. That process is probably going on as we speak, with competition between social housing, new hospitals and the rest.

Historically, as I said on Second Reading, transport fared very badly under that system when it was nationalised. Final decisions are made in a star chamber, or equivalent, and as I know from experience, transport gets squeezed. One advantage of privatisation was that a big chunk of investment was shifted off the government balance sheet on to the private sector, and as a result there was a huge increase in investment.

Railtrack was clearly in the private sector. When Network Rail was set up by the previous Labour Government, they were very anxious that it should be a private company and so kept off the PSBR. They devised a rather elaborate form of corporate governance. It was a company, but it had no shareholders. Instead, it had 114 members—some licence holders and some members of the public. That kept it off the books for a bit, but the Treasury was so worried about this that it told Labour Ministers at the time to stop criticising Network Rail bonuses in case the ONS should use that as an excuse to reclassify it. Eventually, reality caught up and Network Rail was reclassified, in 2014. It could no longer borrow what it needed to keep the projects going. My concern is that what happened to Network Rail is going to happen to GBR, and the Government are taking a gamble in setting it up.

When Network Rail was reclassified, it had to divest around £1.8 billion by selling property assets, including retail units and spare capacity on the telecoms network. It deferred renewals works and postponed completion dates. It had to renegotiate a whole lot of contracts. As a result, its underlying costs increased. The question is: how will GBR be classified? It will not have the pretence of a private company like Network Rail; this will be a nationalised industry. The Minister is unable to give any assurance that it will not be reclassified or classified as public sector, as he said in response to my noble friend on Amendment 19.

The Minister has argued that this will not make any difference because the TOCs do not spend capital. I recognise that that was the case during the pandemic and after it, but it certainly was not before. I will not repeat the example I gave earlier of Chiltern, which spent a substantial amount of private capital investing in the railway, including building new stations. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, endorsed that comment.

The Minister has also argued that, because the roscos remain in the private sector—this is an amendment the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, may speak to—the investment in new trains they made during the franchise system, by borrowing money privately and purchasing the rolling stock, will continue to flow. He told us during the first day of Committee, on Monday, that, whatever the position regarding the future nationalised industry,

“it must already apply to the four publicly owned train companies”.—[Official Report, 21/10/24; col. 506.]

He has used those four TOCs ordering new fleets as evidence to support his claim that ordering new trains will continue as before.

However, to compare the present accounting arrangements for TOCs that are now in-house, which the current law treats as being prepared to be returned to private sector competition, with the accounting arrangements that would exist for a permanent public monopoly—which GBR is—is to compare apples with oranges. The creation of GBR will create a completely new system, which will change the way in which the ONS categorises expenditure. Those different accounting treatments will make investment in rolling stock harder, as it will be in competition with other demands for public investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this discussion. First, I should say that the objective of this limited Bill before the Committee remains to unify track and train, to provide better services to passengers, to reduce the cost of the railway and to increase the railway’s income. The phrase I would use to start with is, “We are where we are”.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to Network Rail. I am very familiar with its arrangements post being put back on the Government’s balance sheet. All I can say to the noble Lord is that managing it is and has been a difficult job. However, it has still managed to make significant investment in the railway infrastructure of Great Britain. In some ways, its exposure to being in the public sector did it a great deal of good. I was paid significantly less to chair it than my predecessor was; its chief executive is paid significantly less than any of his predecessors and to my mind, he does a very good job. The organisation is a good deal more frugal than it used to be, yet it still does some very good things in operating the railway infrastructure.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, knows that Chiltern was always an outlier. There was no other plausible large-scale investment in railway infrastructure by a train operating company; certainly, there has been no recent interest in it. If you looked at the owners of the train operating companies now, you would see that their balance sheets simply would not support it.

Of course, the noble Lord knows that I cannot predict what the Office for National Statistics will or will not say. Although the suggestion is that, after six years, LNER was still capable of being put back in the private sector, there was absolutely no evidence that it or Northern, which was in public ownership for four years, was being prepared at all. There was also no move in the previous Government’s department to do so. Nevertheless, there was no change in the status of the public accounts of those companies. The noble Lord may speculate that there might be in future, with these arrangements, but I could equally assert that experience suggests that there will not be.

My noble friend Lord Sikka made a further point about the treatment of the assets and liabilities of Network Rail. I will write to both him and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, about that.

On the other hand, I recognise completely the passion with which my noble friends Lord Sikka and Lord Hanworth spoke about the rolling stock companies. Again, we are where we are. I heard my noble friends’ arguments with interest, but the Government will not buy back the rolling stock companies. Great British Railways will enable a longer-term view of the rolling stock market and it will reduce the margins it needs to make. Everybody is right to say that rolling stock lasts for 30 to 35 years, but a railway that is more accurately able to predict how long that rolling stock should last and where it should be used will reduce the uncertainty of relatively short-term leases. It will also significantly reduce the cost of those leases and will actually enhance competition in the market. We will see how that market evolves over time.

Having said all that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said that the Treasury would like to redefine what is public expenditure and what is not. I am sure that is the case—it would like to get some liabilities off the balance sheet. The whole point of having an independent ONS is so that the Treasury, led by politicians, cannot adjust the figures and the liabilities to suit its convenience.

What has not come out in this debate is that there is competition between the roscos to supply the wants of the train operating companies. Originally, there were three, now there are four, and there have been two recent entrants. The competition between them has driven down the costs. The Government, who on Monday spent time trying to persuade foreign investors to invest in infrastructure, will have been a little disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, being less than complimentary about the investments that they have made in some important parts of the infrastructure.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

It is not just the train operators, it is also Network Rail. There was a report published by Nichols Group in July 2022—two years ago—comparing how maintenance and renewal was carried out compared with the water, aviation, energy and roads industries. It was about the failure to introduce flexible rostering and multiskilling teams and to bring in new technology. All these matters could have been resolved and can be resolved. It is not much different from running a different type of transport service such as air or road, and I hope my noble friend will be able to comfort me that this is well on the agenda and that negotiations with the various trade unions involved and the Government will make sure that we end up very soon with a good lot of new agreements with the unions and the operatives concerned, and that that will result in a reduction in costs, which should be 20% or 30%, I am told, and a reduction in delays which, of course, is what the passengers want. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 18 in my name, which proposes the creation of an independent body responsible for pay and terms and conditions of employment for employees of the public companies that are going to be set up under the Bill.

In the long term, I assume that GBR will be responsible for settling these particular issues, but, in the meantime, the question is: who is going to do that? By default, I believe and assume it will be Ministers. That is going to be a real challenge for Ministers, because the department will inherit from the current train operators a whole range of different terms and conditions for their employees, some of them anachronistic. There will then be a difficult process of harmonising all these different terms and conditions into one composite terms and conditions for the new public sector employees that are going to be created. I would have thought that the Government should welcome an independent pay review body to help them through this potential minefield, with the trade unions, understandably, arguing for everybody to be levelled up, with all the implications that will have for current subsidies of the railways.

Also, I think that an independent pay review body which would, of course, receive representations from the Government as to what they thought was affordable, should look at some of the practices that have grown up over the years that might be due for reform: for example, the refusal of trade unions to fit track sensors to trains in order to identify faults in the tracks. That has been held up because there is no agreement.

Likewise, information about changes to speed limits is now put on a board, but it is proposed that it should be put on an iPad; again, there has been resistance to that. Then there is a hangover from the 1980s. As I understand it, an employee who uses a microwave is entitled to paid leave to have a health check.

An independent pay review body could look at some of these practices and see whether they might be modernised. If the alternative is that we should leave all this to Ministers, I am afraid that what happened in the summer does not leave me full of confidence. I am sure that the trade unions, if they had been really pressed, could have set out their new relationship with the new Labour Government by conceding something by way of reform before the near 15% pay settlement. An independent pay review body could look at issues of productivity and management to see if the costs could be managed more effectively.

I turn briefly to Amendment 19, picking up the discussion we had at the end of the last group of amendments about the impact of private investment disappearing, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. As I understand it, the Minister’s reply is basically this: the train operating companies have provided a minimum level of capital investment. I happen to challenge that. The examples I gave—Chiltern opening new railway stations, double-tracking, single-track lines—disprove it; nearly all the investment was self-financed by Chiltern.

Putting that on one side, the Minister’s argument is that the roscos—the rolling stock companies—will continue to buy the rolling stock and, therefore, there is no impact on the public purse. But he has left out a crucial element in the dialogue: the roscos then lease the rolling stock to the train operating companies by way of a franchise. At the moment, the fag end of those franchises, which the department has inherited, score as public expenditure, I believe. That is a liability of a public train operator to discharge the cost of a franchise.

When we move over to the new system, in which all the train operators are run by the Government, surely the franchise costs—the liabilities to pay the rolling stock companies—will score as public expenditure. That was left out of the Minister’s recent exchange. It was also glossed over in the letter that he kindly wrote to us over the weekend. Perhaps he can clarify what the view of the ONS will be on the franchise liabilities of GBR when it takes over the rolling stock from the train operating companies.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I express some degree of surprise that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has tabled this amendment. If you make rest-day working in the railway industry mandatory, it ceases to be rest-day working, does it not? The whole purpose of rest-day working is to see that people take a break from their work. While my noble friend outlined the difficulties that have arisen in various parts of the railway system because people have declined to work their rest days, that is not really the fault of the people themselves or their much-maligned trade unions.

The fact is that, particularly since privatisation—although it happened under British Rail as well—railway staffing has been reduced as much as possible. The first thing that Stagecoach did when it took over South West Trains was to make lots of train drivers redundant. Not surprisingly, the ones who were left declined to work their rest days; they declined to work overtime. The number of cancellations in the first two years of Stagecoach’s operation of South West Trains rose accordingly.

I recommend to my noble friend a book called Red for Danger, written by a man called Tom Rolt—LTC Rolt—who sets out railway accidents since the 19th century, many of which were caused by tiredness because of the number of hours worked by drivers and signalmen. I will give one example. In 1892, the Thirsk accident, which killed some 35 people, was caused by a signalman falling asleep. He fell asleep because his infant daughter had been ill, and he had spent two days trying to find a doctor for her, but she had died. He tried to get time off after her death—he was on nights at the time—but the stationmaster refused permission. He had been awake for 46 hours. Two express trains crashed as a result.

Following that tragic accident, in 1906 the House of Commons at least debated the question of railway hours and the fact that many railway workers worked excessively. Perhaps noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that the debate did not spread to this end of the Corridor—obviously, noble Lords at that time had other things on their minds. Coming reasonably up to date, my noble friend Lord Berkeley will remember the Clapham Junction accident in 1988, where a considerable number of people were killed. That was caused by an error by a signal lineman who had worked every single day for the previous three weeks.

Arising from accidents like those, rest days were introduced by the railway industry around the time of the First World War. If train services cannot be maintained at a particular depot without rest-day working, then that depot is undermanned—it is as simple as that. Whether my noble friend the Minister can promise that such circumstances will not happen under Great British Railways is something I will leave with him.

I hope I have made it quite plain that I am not one of those people who thinks that everything about privatisation was wicked, but one of the downsides of privatisation was at least the tendency to run railway operations with a minimum number of people. I hope my noble friend Lord Berkeley will reflect on, understand and accept the fact that rest days are there for a particular purpose, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

My question is therefore very straightforward. When writing legislation, it strikes me that the normal practice of Ministers and of government is not to write legislation so as to restrict their powers. It is normal to write it so as to give oneself the powers to act in ways that one might need in the future. Here we have a very odd situation where the Government are deliberately stopping the possibility of extending franchises that are being successfully operated and are writing the new Section 30 in a way that allows them to make a direct award of a contract only to a wholly owned public sector company, whereas it may be in the Government’s and indeed the passengers’ interest for them to do something different. So, I put it to the Government—that is my probing amendment for this purpose—that they should write the legislation in a way that gives them more powers in the future. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will add a footnote to the excellent speech from my noble friend Lord Lansley and note in passing that the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill is running late, with the likelihood of hitting the target of getting to Amendment 11 at a reasonable hour becoming vanishingly small.

This group of amendments is to some extent the obverse of the group that we have just had. The focus of the previous group was on ending prematurely, before the Government would wish, services that were not running satisfactorily, whereas the thrust of this group is to enable the Government to extend beyond the date that they prefer a contract that is running satisfactorily.

In a sense, this is all about ideology. There are two potential views. One was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who on Second Reading said:

“I have an ideological commitment to a nationalised railway system”.—[Official Report, 7/10/24; col. 1883.]

By contrast, in that same debate, his noble friend Lord Liddle—who, as we have heard, was formerly the opposition transport spokesman in your Lordships’ House, said:

“I do not see any ideological objection to public/private partnerships in running the railway”.

He then gave an example:

“You might have a situation where a private company was prepared to commit to electrification plans for a particular line that would not be in the public sector investment plan. My view is that we should allow public/private partnerships on a net additionality rule. If they are going to bring more investment into the rail system, what on earth is the case for not allowing them to do so?”. —[Official Report, 7/10/24; col. 1840.]


Again, in the debate today, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, said he was in favour of a mixed economy. I agree with that approach. If this amendment is opposed, it is because the Government have taken Lord Whitty’s view and they have an ideological commitment to nationalisation—which I thought had been abandoned some 30 years ago under Tony Blair’s leadership.

There has been an argument for flexibility. I want to develop the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, developed about Chiltern Railways and Marylebone station. In the 1980s, Marylebone station was almost moribund. There were a few services to the commuter villages of Aylesbury, Amersham and Chesham, but, in the decade before privatisation, there were proposals from British Rail to close Marylebone. There were also alternative plans to turn the railway into a road. That was before privatisation. Three years after privatisation, 18 miles of single track between Princes Risborough and Bicester North had been doubled. In 2000, the brand new £4.2 million Warwick Parkway station was opened, and, by the end of the first franchise, advance plans were made to double the single-track section between Bicester North and Aynho, at a cost of £53 million. Marylebone station was then extended by adding a further two platforms, and there was an increase in line speed to Beaconsfield. In 2011, Chiltern took over the operating services on the Oxford-Bicester line from First Great Western and opened two new stations, Oxford Parkway and Bicester Village, providing services between north Oxford and Marylebone.

How confident is the Minister that all that would have happened if the line had remained with British Rail, which, 20 years earlier, was planning to close the station? Chiltern could do this because it had a 20-year franchise, which created the incentives for significant investment in rolling stock, major infrastructure and, as a result, timetable enhancements. It delivered its project on time and on budget, and self-financed nearly all the projects that I have just mentioned.

When pressed on why they were doing this, the Minister relied on, “It is in the manifesto”. Well, I hope they can provide a better argument than simply saying that. To use the expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, Chiltern is to be sent prematurely to the “knacker’s yard”. Our debate takes place against a background of a Budget in a few days’ time, with enormous pressure on public expenditure. What the Government are planning to do—we will reach this in a later group of amendments—is bring on to their balance sheet all the private sector investment that has previously been borne by the private sector. Freight was mentioned, and the fact that they want to leave freight and open access operations in private hands perhaps indicates some inconsistency in their view that the private sector cannot deliver good services.

I will briefly mention two other reasons for these amendments. There is a question of the capacity of members of the Minister’s own department to manage all the new franchises that are going to come in. At the moment, they run four rail franchises; they have just two full-time staff and they rely on private consultants to manage these four franchises on a day-to-day basis. They are planning to absorb the remaining 10 franchises, which are now in private hands. They will have to grow significantly their own capacity to manage those departments and, as I understand it, they are in the process of growing their headcount from 21 to 90 by the end of the calendar year; all this at a time when there is pressure on departments to reduce their headcount. All these new people, all the external consultants, will need time to get up to speed with their new roles and build the necessary relationships to be effective, and I think that is a major constraint on their plans.

There is one other reason, which may be a simply technical one. It is possible that the Government may wish to extend an incumbent operator’s franchise, for example due to the lack of internal capacity that I have just referred to; but it may also be that the operator may not be willing to agree to a contract extension. As I understand it, with the Bill as currently written, the Government would not be allowed to appoint an alternative operator on a temporary basis—again representing a significant risk.

So these amendments indicate the need for flexibility, to allow the Government to retain high-performing private sector operators and to continue to give passengers an excellent service while minimising costs for taxpayers. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will not say, “This is in the manifesto”, but will give some cogent reasons for ending the arrangement that provides, in the cases of Chiltern and Greater Anglia, the two lines that we have heard about, a high-quality service, possibly higher than the public sector would be able to provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the potential conflict of interest under the new scenario: we will have Great British Railways, with a single operating mind, carrying all the revenue risk for passenger train operations, while at the same time there will be open-access operators and freight operators bidding for a limited path on the railways.

The former Secretary of State said:

“I shouldn’t need to approve whether a passenger train ought to be removed from the timetable to allow a freight train to run instead, as I was doing earlier today”.


The question is: who is going to make that decision in the future? If it is going to be GBR, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, there is a clear conflict of interest; the company would have an interest in the passenger train operator having precedence in order to secure the revenue. That may be in conflict with government policy, which is to promote the transfer of freight from road to rail. Surely it is important that at the moment, the train operator cannot insist that he has a particular path for his train: he has to bid either to Network Rail or to the ORR. Who is going to make that decision in the future? Will it be a domestic one within GBR? In which case, how will the conflict of interest raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for both the open-access operator and the freight train operator, which may find that they do not have the paths they wanted?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, this small group of amendments addresses a number of issues that inevitably raise questions, because this very tightly drawn Bill provides no hint of how they are to be dealt with. I participate in this debate with some temerity following contributions by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who know so much detail about the freight industry.

Liberal Democrat Amendments 40 and 41, to which I have added my name, are therefore probing amendments looking for details of government plans, which I hope the Minister can supply today. There are thousands of jobs and potentially billions of pounds of investment riding on the Government’s answers to these questions.

Amendment 40 is about a very specific issue but, as my noble friend Lady Pidgeon has emphasised, the role of the British Transport Police is vital, providing the rule of law on our trains. It is important to remember that the rule of law provides consumer and passenger confidence. Those of us who are older, younger or weaker are particularly dependent on the good offices of the BTP because they provide the assurance that people need before they are prepared to travel on our trains.

I emphasise that, as my noble friend said, British Transport Police funding has been provided virtually unseen from within the industry for a very long time. The total amount of money, at nearly £500 million a year, is not inconsiderable. It is therefore important that we have a clear answer now from the Government about they intend to deal with BTP in the future. In particular, how will it be overseen? Will that be with independence and at arm’s length from the Government? Which body will do that supervision?

Amendment 41, on freight, deals with a much more substantial and complex issue, because the freight industry is so complex. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, it is essential that the new system be set up to encourage rail freight to improve its efficiency. That will be difficult, as he emphasised, because a centralised, nationalised Great British Railways will be bound to feel pressure to prioritise passenger services. We have crowded tracks running at capacity. We have vocal passengers who want trains at a time and a frequency convenient to them. We have a Government who have sponsored a nationalisation project, and their reputation will be damaged if passengers’ interests suffer. We also have a Government who emphasise that they are facing a financial black hole. Will they be willing to invest in track and signal modernisation of the sort outlined by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, to benefit freight rather than passengers?

I fear that freight could rapidly become a poor relation, so I am keen to hear details and reassurance from the Minister. I thank him for his letter, but I point out that it says that next year’s railways Bill will “enable” the growth of freight. I emphasise that I would much prefer a duty to promote the growth of freight, rather than simply enabling it.

Pedal Cycles

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for sponsoring this debate, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me for a moment of nostalgia. On 11 July 1975, the newly elected Member of Parliament for Acton initiated a debate in the other place on cycling. Nearly 50 years later, here he is again, though happily not, as then, at 4.30 pm on a Friday. That was a time when there were no cycle racks at all in Parliament, or at Paddington station. The few MPs who cycled to work were regarded as mildly eccentric, as was the most well-known pedalling Peer, Lord Hailsham. London then had 80,000 cyclists; it now has 600,000.

My speech included some novel arguments for promoting cycling, working out that cyclists converted energy into miles at the equivalent of 1,600 miles to the gallon, and set out a charter for cyclists, as well as a unit for cycling within government, cycle lanes, including a cycle lane in Hyde Park, a head start for cyclists at traffic lights, and cycle networks sponsored by local authorities. My speech was described as “interesting” by the Minister. This was before the programme “Yes Minister” revealed that “interesting” was mandarin for “crazy”. He proceeded to reject my suggestions, saying that it would be

“difficult to provide separate traffic lanes in the middle of … London”

and that adjusting traffic lights would be “costly”. On cycle networks promoted by local authorities, he said that

“with our present economic difficulties and with a cut-back in many local authority services imminent—this is hardly the time for Parliament to be urging local authorities to fresh expenditure”.

Well, plus ça change. The idea of a cycle lane in Hyde Park was “interesting”, and on a unit in his department there was again a thumbs down:

“We are being asked to cut down on the numbers of civil servants”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/1975; cols. 1025-26.]


But 50 years on we have made enormous progress, thanks in part to the APPG that was started in that Parliament. It anticipated “Boris bikes” by having a bicycle pool in New Palace Yard, enabling Peers and MPs to access a bicycle for £5 a year. Many used them to go out to lunch but, having been well entertained, they returned by taxi, leaving the organisers to collect our fleet from the choicest eating houses in the West End.

But enough of nostalgia. I join others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in condemning the dangerous and anti-social behaviour of those cyclists who break the law. Why are illegal e-bikes not confiscated on the spot? A few well-publicised instances would have a real impact. But justified criticism of a minority should not morph into an attitude that is hostile to cyclists as a whole. The focus of today’s debate should be on encouraging more people to cycle safely and responsibly, in line with the policy of Governments of all colours.

I have a specific request to the Minister. At the all-party reception on Tuesday, the deputy leader of Lambeth Council spoke about the hazard of rental bikes being abandoned on pavements. These are an obstruction to pedestrians and a hazard to the visually impaired. Lambeth does not want to ban them, as the chap from Brent wanted to do on the radio this morning, but Lambeth does not have the powers to manage the problem. Will the Minister’s officials discuss this with Lambeth to see how this might be put right?

I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, but I take issue with his proposal to register and license bicycles—I oppose that. He set out the case more fully in today’s House magazine. The Government have also looked at that and opposed it—and a Written Answer of a few months ago said:

“The Department considered the potential advantages and disadvantages of a mandatory registration and licensing system for cycle ownership as part of a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018. This found that the cost and complexity of such a system would outweigh the benefits, and that restricting people’s ability to cycle in this way would mean that many would be likely to choose other modes of transport instead, with negative impacts for congestion, pollution, and health”.


Is that still the Government’s view? Licensing has been tried and abandoned in Toronto and in Switzerland. The Prime Minister has said he wants to tread more lightly on our lives, and my noble friend Lord Moylan, a champion of deregulation, would of course want to leave an even smaller footprint on us.

In 50 years there may be another debate on cycling and I may not be on the speakers’ list, but I hope that we continue to make the sort of progress we have made over the last 50 years.

Pedal Cyclists: Insurance

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful for that question from the noble Lord. The Government have no plans to implement a system of licence plates for cyclists. There are over 20 million cyclists in Great Britain, and a national licensing system for all cyclists similar to the one for cars and motorcycles would be complex and expensive to design and administer. Cycles would need to be fitted with registration plates that are sufficiently visible and robust. Those would not easily be transferred from one cycle to another and the cost of administrating such a scheme would be likely to outweigh the benefits.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is not a vote winner with the Young family, but what is the point of introducing new laws on cycling when we cannot enforce the existing ones—particularly new laws which would discourage children from cycling to school, which the Government are supporting with £60 million of funds?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Lord’s question is properly best directed to the Home Office in terms of enforcement, but I share his view that it does need to be enforced far more heavily than it is at this moment.

NATS: Staffing

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

There are plenty of questions there for me to get my teeth into. I shall focus on staffing and staffing resilience at Gatwick in the tower. Two unrelated operational incidents caused withdrawal pending review, which is a standard safety procedure, and that impacted the flow on that day. However, when NATS took over air traffic control at Gatwick in October 2022, it inherited a staffing shortage. It takes at least 13 months to train an air traffic controller at a specific airport, and as I am sure the noble Baroness realises, 13 months have not yet elapsed. We have reviewed NATS’ plans, we are continuing to do so, and we believe that progress is being made.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, a fortnight ago, I asked my noble friend whether NATS should be liable to pay compensation for its failures in the same way as the airlines are, but she resisted. In defence, she said that NATS’ licence conditions allow penalties to be imposed for its failures. However, in a Written Answer, my noble friend told me that over the past five years, those penalties amounted only to £600,000, whereas this month the airlines have had to pay £100 million for NATS’ failures. Surely NATS should have to pay compensation in the same way as the airlines.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his continued questions on this matter. There are 55 licensed air navigation service providers in the UK. I am not saying that all of them could look after Gatwick, because it is incredibly complicated, but it is a commercial operation, entirely separate and different from what happens in upper air space, which is what I think my noble friend was questioning me about last week. There is a contractual arrangement between the airport and NATS which will include service level agreements and, I am sure, financial penalties, but it is a commercial matter of which the Government do not have oversight.