Railways Bill

Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Sorry, I did not mean that.

What I am trying to do with these five amendments is to make sure that public ownership of our railways really means public ownership. The Bill, as it currently stands, could allow companies within Great British Railways to have private shareholders. The Bill is, or should be, about bringing our railways back into public ownership, and we therefore should not be creating a back door that allows private ownership to creep in.

This is the worry that the Association of British Commuters, We Own It and Bring Back British Rail have brought to us. They and the others are asking a very simple question: what exactly do we mean when we say that Great British Railways will be publicly owned? At the moment, the answer is not clear in the Bill. The Government made a welcome commitment that all the shares in the parent company of Great British Railways would be publicly owned, but does that extend to the companies sitting beneath it?

The Bill defines a GBR company as a subsidiary within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006. A subsidiary does not have to be wholly publicly owned; it can be partly owned by private investors, provided that the parent company retains control. We could have a railway where the parent company is entirely publicly owned but where companies carrying out important railway functions have private shareholders. Does that not fundamentally change what public ownership means? The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 used a much clearer definition: a public sector company had to be wholly publicly owned. The Companies Act itself provides the Government with the wording they could have used if they intended to require wholly owned subsidiaries. I think we have to ask this: why was that stronger definition not used here?

This is not helped by the Government not being clear about exactly which functions GBR companies will carry out, as the Bill gives these companies the ability to carry out potentially any GBR function. That could include train operations and infrastructure management, which leaves the door open to a very different railway in the future. In a worst-case scenario, the new definition of GBR companies as subsidiaries could even lead to the part-privatisation of rail infrastructure management—a direction of travel thought impossible in the UK since the days of Railtrack.

Railway privatisation has been a disaster: it fragmented the railways, drove up costs and put private profit ahead of passengers. We should not be creating a structure today that would enable a future Government to say, “Well, the legislation already allows private investment and we’re simply making use of the powers that Parliament has already given us”. These amendments would stop that happening. I should also say that I have not yet had the delight of meeting with the Minister, but I am sure that that is in progress.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to a number of the amendments in this group. First, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Moylan said at the beginning about ownership. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just said that this Bill is about public ownership, but actually it is not. That was the other Bill to which she referred; this Bill is about setting up GBR as the guiding mind, bringing track and train together—however one wants to characterise it. It is not essential to the core purpose of the Bill; the ownership structure is not core to delivering the services. My noble friend Lord Moylan was right to make those points in his opening remarks.

Of the specific amendments, Amendment 2 is very pertinent. My noble friend Lord Moylan focused on the “owned by the Crown” piece, but Clause 1(3) talks about Great British Railways being

“wholly owned by the Crown”.

Even if we accept that GBR should largely be owned by the Minister—in effect, on behalf of the public—who is able to direct things, I am not sure that we should be in favour of it being “wholly owned”. There is a very good argument for having some private capital. It might be that you want to get that capital involved in the company. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to infrastructure, and we may wish to use it for that and people could have a shareholding. It may be, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, that we would wish to have some joint ventures. I will give two examples.

One of the countries whose railways people generally admire is Japan. Interestingly, people involved in the railways in Japan largely admire how we do them, as well. There is an enormous amount of cross-fertilisation between experts from both countries. They have very successfully defrayed some of the costs of running their railway by using the value of the property in which the railway system operates—on top of, below or alongside —to generate some effective retail operations and other things that generate a significant amount of money. This keeps down the cost to the taxpayer from running the railway.

Network Rail does some of those sorts of joint ventures already in developing property and that seems perfectly reasonable. Even if we accepted that running the railway piece should be publicly owned—and I do not—it would seem perfectly reasonable if Network Rail, which will now become part of GBR, wished to have some joint ventures with people who develop property and people who help to maximise the returns for the taxpayer on the assets owned by GBR. The state is frankly not very good at doing those things, which are important not just to raise revenue to defray costs but to develop and energise the economy in some of our towns and cities up and down the country. Core railway assets are often where you could develop housing and other things to redevelop areas.

To give a specific example, there was a Written Answer from the Minister recently—forgive me, but I cannot remember whether it was answered yesterday or in the previous few days—about how the Government will develop Euston station. Originally, that was going to be done by HS2, but, when I was Secretary of State, we came to the conclusion that HS2 was probably not going to make a good fist of that. At that time, the Minister was the chairman of the Euston Partnership, which brought together representatives of the Mayor of London, local authorities and private sector companies involved in developing the station. We came to the conclusion that a development-led approach would be better, in order to develop a significant amount of housing for that part of London as well as private sector office and business space, as we had done around King’s Cross and St Pancras, which has had a huge impact on the economy. But that involves working in partnership with the private sector.

I do not know how in the end the Government will structure that approach, but it seems to me that it would be sensible at least to keep open the option that, at the very least, a subsidiary of GBR could potentially own a joint venture or part of the entity involved in delivering the development, either to help to run it or to share in some of the capital gain. You may or may not wish to do that, but ruling out the ability to do that does not seem to me sensible. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, which probes that issue, is sensible and has a lot of merit.

On the issue of private shareholders, I will make the argument just briefly, since this Bill is not about nationalisation, about where the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, misunderstands the point about private companies. As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, from the point of view of the consumer and the delivery of services, privatisation was for most of its life a massive success. It brought into the railways an enormous amount of private capital, new rolling stock, new services and a hugely greater number of people using the railways than had been the case under British Rail, under which passenger numbers had, frankly, been declining since the Second World War. It was a huge success.

Now, it is absolutely true that the passenger franchise model had some issues and, in fact, was effectively destroyed by the pandemic. I am not suggesting that we necessarily would have wanted to carry on with that model, but there are other models involving the private sector. For example, the way that TfL operates in London is that TfL specifies the services but, in a number of cases, it contracts with companies to run those. also, as the then Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Prime Minister set up the bus services that he wished to procure, but it was the private sector that delivered those. Those models seem to me perfectly sensible. If you set them up properly, the company makes money only if it delivers services that passengers require. That seems to me a very sensible model. I know that the noble Baroness does not agree with it, but I just wanted to set out how it actually works, as opposed to her characterisation of it.

The last point that I want to make is on Amendment 8, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, which talks about the organisational structure of GBR. The reason why that is important—I think we will come on to this in some of our later debates—is that it is, in effect, how you set up the organisation and, therefore, how it takes decisions and who takes the decisions within the structure.

Cyclists: Safety

Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling and the similar Amendment 18 in this group in the names of other noble Lords. They both have the same intention, which is to make sure, as set out in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, that the point of the revenue certainty mechanism is to support UK SAF production, not SAF production that takes place elsewhere. I think my noble friend Lord Grayling had two purposes in tabling the amendment: first, to make that point explicit; and, secondly, to test with the Minister what definition of UK production the Government are going to adopt in their contracts. What does that mean for the components of the fuel, and where do the different stages of production have to take place? What will be the lines about what qualifies as UK production?

Clearly, what we are intending to do, certainly with the plants that have received capital support from the Government, is to have the end-to-end process here in the UK, the plants here in the UK and effectively all the value created in the UK. But there may well be businesses that do only part of that in the UK. It is important for the Government to be clear about where the lines are going to be and what they are going to insist on in the contracts, so that the money coming from UK consumers is going to support UK jobs as part of that industrial policy. That is, after all, the point of this. There is no point in having a revenue certainty mechanism if all it is going to do is deliver SAF production elsewhere in the world. We could just let it get on with it, frankly, and not be too worried about it.

The point is to make sure that we produce that fuel here for two reasons, as I understand it. One is the industrial policy argument of making sure that we develop the technology here, but there is also the learning from what happened during the Covid pandemic when countries resorted to holding on to essential fuel supplies for their own industries. During that period, the international trade in some of these internationally traded commodities gummed up, and we found that some of those strategic supplies were not available. UK production is important for both those reasons, and I think it would be of benefit to the Committee to hear from the Minister exactly how the Government are going to deliver that.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, my name is attached in support of Amendment 18, but I did not ask for it to be. I asked for it to be attached to a different amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I think this is a great amendment anyway and I am fully in support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 15, which is absolutely vital. Every time I look at the Title of this Bill, I get irritated because there is no such thing as sustainable aviation fuel, and we really ought to accept that. Too often, we have these grand promises that are never backed up— I would argue that carbon capture and storage is another one. But if the Government are to press ahead with so-called sustainable aviation fuel, the very least we should expect is full transparency about what is being produced, where it is coming from and what the real impacts are. Reporting on UK sustainable fuel production would give Parliament the ability to see whether this industry is genuinely delivering any climate benefits or whether we are simply shifting emissions, land pressures and environmental harms elsewhere.

As one expert put it:

“We’re not about to start eating more chips, so we will have to start importing more waste oil”.


What if rising European demand for so-called waste oil is being met with virgin palm oil fraudulently passed off as waste? If that is happening—studies suggest it is—then any emissions savings vanish, replaced by deforestation for palm-oil plantations. Plus, most of our waste cooking oil is currently used in road transport fuels, so diverting it into aviation simply shifts emissions elsewhere and nothing actually shrinks.

Parliament should not be expected to take the Government’s optimism on trust. We need to see what is really happening, and Amendment 15 would provide at least a little transparency, accountability and a dose of realism—three things that are too often missing from aviation policy. If the Government believe that sustainable aviation fuel will play a meaningful role in decarbonising aviation, they should have no hesitation in reporting openly and regularly on its progress.

My Amendment 19A asks the Secretary of State to do something that should already be at the heart of a Bill such as this: to acknowledge that what we do here—what we incentivise, what we subsidise and what we label as sustainable—has real consequences for land, forests and communities here and far beyond our shores. Sustainability does not stop at the white cliffs of Dover. Protecting land over here while outsourcing environmental destruction over there is not sustainability; it is hypocrisy.

Supporting crop-based aviation fuels risks taking land away from food and from nature. It risks fuelling deforestation, especially in the global South, where communities are already living with the impacts of land grabs and ecological collapse. Yet this Bill encourages exactly that. We are using or talking about land as if it were an infinite resource, and it most definitely is not. Land is already under enormous pressure from farming, housing, biodiversity loss and climate breakdown. Turning that precious land over to growing crops for climate-destroying fuel makes absolutely no sense.

My amendment would require the Government to publish an assessment of how the revenue support mechanism for so-called sustainable aviation fuel is affecting land use internationally, including whether it is driving deforestation or other damaging land use change. Parliament deserves to know if we are simply shifting environmental harm on to other countries while congratulating ourselves on green progress.

Even if we overlook the land use impacts—and we should not—this Bill will not do anything to actually reduce air travel emissions. Sustainable aviation fuel, as described here, is at best a drop in the ocean—a rapidly rising ocean. A clever accounting trick will not cool the planet, nor will a marginal fuel switch deliver any sort of the emissions reductions we need. One analysis of sustainable fuels shows that carbon emission savings are almost entirely wiped out by the rising demand for air travel. As Professor Bill Rutherford of Imperial College said:

“The only way you can make aviation any more sustainable is to do less of it”.


Every hectare of land used to grow fuel crops risks locking us further into a system that protects the freedom of frequent flyers, rather than the future of the planet.

I apologise; I did not thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell —soon to be Baron—for his support for my amendment.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, since they are both still in the Chamber, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on their life peerages so that they will remain with us. I will not get into the ranking thing we got into earlier, but it is very good they will both still be with us.

On the substance of these amendments, transparency is broadly a good thing. As I said in response to an earlier amendment, being transparent about this is very helpful. Given that Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talks about reporting on progress, this might be a suitable opportunity to ask the Minister, when he winds up this group, to respond to the question I asked him at Second Reading and provide the Committee with an update on the plants we hope to see in the UK and where they have got to. The Minister very kindly responded to some of the questions Members raised at Second Reading in his recent letter of 2 December, including one or two that I raised. I am very grateful to him for being courteous and doing that as he said he would, but he did not touch on where we were at with those plants. Given the significant amount of money in the various rounds of support that we have given—both through the Aerospace Technology Institute and directly from government—it would be helpful for the Committee to have an update on some of the timeframes. We have been contacted directly by some of the providers with updates on when they think their plants will be ready, but it would be helpful to have that wider picture.

Although the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, knows that I do not agree with her overall view about aviation—we had that exchange at Second Reading—I will take the opportunity, as it does not happen very often, to support the thrust of her amendment. Transparency is very helpful. She will know from my comments at Second Reading that I generally do not support the use of food crops being grown specifically for this purpose, but she will also know I have one potential exception: if, by doing so, we can keep the present United States Government focused in this space, it would be a win.

I am grateful for two points the Minister made in his reply. First, he confirmed that the Government were working closely with the US Administration and wanted to keep them on board. That is helpful. Secondly, he confirmed—I hope this was welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that the Government set very high sustainability standards for SAF in the UK and were looking to make sure the revenue certainty mechanism was in line with that approach and did not trespass on it.

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there is no point in us doing great things in the United Kingdom if the result is that we just drive poor behaviours elsewhere, so having some transparency on that would be very helpful. The specific amendment may or may not be able to be improved, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the Government intend to add extra transparency to the Bill on Report, or whether we will need to return to that ourselves and use the collective set of amendments here to do some sensible reporting.

We have to make sure that it is balanced and that we do not put undue burdens on people, but transparency in this space would be helpful for the industry in explaining what is going on, as well as for consumers. Given that there is a cost to this, showing consumers what is happening, and the cost of that, would be helpful in demonstrating the trade-offs that we are having to make in this space. I am broadly supportive of this group of amendments.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No.

This SI goes directly against the promises made by Ministers when the anti-terror laws were introduced. The then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, clarified that if direct action groups

“do not engage in serious violence … the new definition cannot catch them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/12/1999; col. 227.]

The current definition of terrorism includes property damage to cover

“actions which might not be violent in themselves but which can, in a modern society, have a devastating impact”.

Based on what the Minister has said and what the Government have told us, Palestine Action’s activities have not had the potential for a “devastating impact” on society, and nor have its activities included a pattern of serious violence. Yet the Government are putting it into the same category as Islamic State and al-Qaeda, setting an incredibly dangerous precedent that will impact on numerous peaceful campaigning groups. There is a long and noble tradition—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Is the noble Baroness prepared to answer questions about—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No, sweetie. Noble Lords can come in at the end, okay?

There is a long and noble tradition of the use of direct action by protest movements, including the suffragettes—yesterday we celebrated the anniversary of the Equal Franchise Act, when women were finally given the right to vote—anti-apartheid protests, Greenpeace and peace campaigners such as CND and the women of Greenham Common. I ask the Minister: under the Government’s proposal, would they also be retrospectively branded as terrorists? What about Queen Boudicca, a freedom fighter for the British tribes under the Roman yoke? This Government would call her a terrorist and say there is no place in British society for her, either.

Campaigners committing criminal damage have been annoying the public and Governments for well over 100 years. The police take them to court, the newspapers owned by rich people condemn them and occasionally we get a change in government policy. That is rather how our damaged democracy has been working.

I completely agree that democracies have to defend themselves against violent attacks on their citizens aimed at furthering a political cause, which is why we should be uniting to proscribe the other two groups that the noble Lord has described. But democracies have to defend themselves against politicians choosing censorship as a way of silencing opposition to unpopular policies, which is what I think the Government are doing here.

That brings me to my most important point. This proscription order undermines the entire consensus behind our country’s anti-terror laws. I ask the Minister and every noble Lord whether they can name another group that they are about to proscribe that has hundreds of thousands of British people following it on social media. What exactly does the Minister think will happen to that support for Palestine Action from such a large swathe of British people who suddenly feel, after Wednesday, when the order takes place, that they might be affected if they morally oppose genocide and the terrorism laws being used to defend what is morally wrong? I do not agree with everything that this group has done, not by any means, but when I hear that businesses have been stopped supplying arms to the Israeli military in Gaza, I feel happy that that has happened.