Author: jonesjb

Thames Water

Published on by jonesjb

I intervened in this debate on drought to say: Thames Water, which I am a customer of, will run out of money within the next few weeks. Eighteen months ago it was given £3 billion to keep going and now it is asking for a further £2.4 billion. Why on earth is Thames Water not in special administration already?

Baroness Hayman of Ullock replied for HMG: The simple answer to that is that the rules for special administration make it quite difficult for the Government to put Thames Water into special administration while it is still financing itself. I know the noble Baroness is saying that it is about to run out of money, but on paper and in its finances, it is continuing to operate as a company and to provide water. The question is: how long are the Government prepared to accept the current situation? That is something we are looking at.

Link to debate here: Drought: Impact and Policies – Hansard – UK Parliament

Loss of confidence in Southern Water

Published on by jonesjb

On 7th October Havant Borough councillors unanimously passed a vote of no confidence in the local water company Southern Water. I spoke at their meeting to say: “I’ve come today because it’s an opportunity to actually highlight the problems there are with Southern Water. The water companies are acting illegally, because they are not doing the job that they were designed for, or the commitment that they’ve taken on. They’re dumping sewage and they are actually making life quite miserable for all sorts of people who would like to be able to paddle in streams, or let their dogs go into rivers, or want to swim off a seashore. I was at Langstone Quay today, and there were used cotton buds and used lavatory paper all over the quayside that clearly has been washed over from a high tide from sewage. That is just unacceptable. In some places where sewage is going into watercourses, ecosystems are being destroyed because they can’t cope with the level of pollution. It’s not only human faeces and so on, but also a lot of forever chemicals, and things like oestrogen, which are really messing up life cycles of various creatures.”

Local news coverage here: Why does Havant Borough Council have no confidence in Southern Water?

I back the Wirral campaign against CO2 pipeline

Published on by jonesjb

Last w/e I visited Wirral to speak at a local Green Party event organised by Green Party councillor Gail Jenkinson, thank you Gail!

The following day I met campaigners opposing the proposed Peak Cluster scheme intending to transport C02 emissions from cement factories to be stored off shore. I spoke to campaigners including Laura Beveridge-Muircroft, chair of campaign group Action Against Carbon Capture Storage AACCS.

Laura says: The proposed Peak Cluster carbon capture and storage project involves approximately 200 km of CO₂ pipeline infrastructure, transporting emissions from cement and lime production facilities to geological storage beneath Morecambe Bay. The National Wealth Fund has committed approximately £28.6 million in public investment towards the project’s development, with total project costs potentially running into billions of pounds. Given the scale of the proposed infrastructure and the availability of alternative industrial decarbonisation technologies, there are legitimate questions concerning value for money and whether less costly or less environmentally damaging solutions have been adequately assessed.

Following my visit I will ask the Government: What independent value-for-money assessment was undertaken before public funding was committed to the Peak Cluster carbon capture and storage project, and what evidence can the Government provide that alternative decarbonisation technologies, including low-carbon cement production, alternative fuels and process innovations, were comprehensively evaluated against the project’s whole-life financial costs, environmental impacts and anticipated carbon reductions?

The Wirral Glove article on my visit here: Baroness Jones backs Wirral campaign against CO2 pipeline | Wirral Globe

Railways Bill Committee Stage Day 4

Published on by jonesjb

Natalie stepped in to cover the first part of the debate clashed with the Public Accountability Bill debate…

Amendment 114A moved by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

114A: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—

“Passenger modal shift target(1) The Secretary of State must, after consulting the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers, set and publish a target, specifying a date by which it is to be achieved, to increase the overall distance travelled by passengers by railway.(2) In setting the target, the Secretary of State must have particular regard to—(a) increasing the distance travelled by passengers by railway relative to travel by private car and domestic air services, and(b) increasing the distance travelled by passengers by railway where railway travel forms part of a journey involving active travel, bus, tram, metro, coach, ferry or other public transport services.(3) The Secretary of State must, in respect of each year, prepare, lay before Parliament and publish a report setting out progress towards meeting the target, the steps taken to meet it and the steps proposed to be taken in the following year.(4) The Secretary of State must review the target at least once in every period of five years.

(5) The Secretary of State may revise or replace the target only if the revised or replacement target is no less ambitious than the target it revises or replaces.(6) Before revising or replacing the target, the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers.(7) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, have regard to the target set by the Secretary of State under this section.”

Member’s explanatory statement: This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set a target to increase the distance travelled by passengers by railway.

Natalie’s speech: Lords, observant noble Lords will have noticed that I am not my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She apologises that she is currently occupied in the Chamber with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, although I hope she will rejoin the Committee shortly. My qualifications for taking part in this Committee are that, over 14 years, I have travelled an enormous number of train miles across these islands and I am passionate about greatly improving the reliability, affordability and practicality of train travel. I just looked at my diary and, in the next 10 days, I have journeys to Kidderminster, Manningtree, Sheffield and Manchester. I have my fingers crossed.

In moving Amendment 114A, I will speak primarily to all the other amendments in this rather diverse group, described as “general duties”. I briefly express sympathy with Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I have heard the noble Lord on the subject of heritage railways many times, and I look forward to hearing him again.

Amendments 114A and 118B are about the role we expect Great British Railways to play in getting people on to rail, given the climate and environmental crises. At the moment, the Bill downgrades the role of the environment, at a time when we absolutely cannot afford to do that. Transport is the UK’s highest polluting sector, and a modal shift duty is an absolute must.

There is a reference in Clause 18 to the effect that railway services have on the environment, but it is a relatively narrow formulation. It is essentially about minimising the harm caused by the railway. We should ask for something much more ambitious: how can the railway itself be a tool in reducing emissions and car dependency, which could have positive cost of living impacts for families and communities, as well as helping us respond to the climate and nature emergencies.

There are demonstrations of what is possible across these islands. Wales has put clear numbers on this. Its transport strategy aims for 45% of journeys to be made by walking, cycling or public transport by 2040. Its net zero Wales commitments include reducing car mileage per person by 10% by 2030, from a 2019 baseline, and increasing journeys by sustainable modes to 39% by 2030.

Scotland has also recognised the importance of reducing car use. It previously set a target to reduce car kilometres by 20% by 2030 from a 2019 baseline. The Scottish Government have since acknowledged that this target is off track and are revising it according to a longer-term target aligned with their climate objectives, but the policy commitment to reduce car use is still there.

There is another important difference. Under Section 44 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, Scottish public authorities already have a statutory duty, when exercising their functions, to act in a way best calculated to contribute to Scotland’s climate targets and programmes. But Great British Railways, the Office of Rail and Road, and the Secretary of State will not have an equivalent overarching statutory climate duty under this Bill unless changes such as those proposed here are made. If Scotland and Wales can do this, why not us?

Amendment 127 is on affordability. It is obvious that, if we want people to choose trains over cars and planes, trains have to be affordable. I can cite many examples of where this clearly is not the case. Which? found a return journey from Edinburgh to Bournemouth costing £127 by train—I think I have made that journey, and it is not a great pleasure—compared to £38 by plane. Glasgow to London was £101 by train, compared to £67 by plane. At times, I am sure we could find even worse examples. We cannot seriously expect people to choose rail if it costs two or three times as much as flying.

Affordability is not just about the cheapest ticket you can find online. People have to travel when they need to travel. People on low incomes, shift workers, young people, passengers with disabilities and people living in rural and coastal areas, where there are few alternatives, are often faced with simply impossible costs. We need a clear duty on the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to improve the affordability and fairness of fares, with particular regard to those groups. I therefore explicitly ask the Minister: what is the Government’s ambition for affordable fares under Great British Railways? Will they consider putting that ambition into the Bill?

I come, finally, to Amendments 330K and 334A on the regulation of licences. These are about the relationship between the general duties of the Bill and the licences that will govern the railway. Under the 1993 legislation, licence conditions must have regard to the general duties. These amendments would make sure that this same connection is carried throughout the Bill. As I understand it, with the way the Bill is currently drawn, that link is being removed. This seems important, because the Bill gives us a set of general duties for Great British Railways, but then the licensing framework is no longer required to have regard to them. What will guide the conditions that are put on the licence if the Government are indeed taking away this duty? That is another direct question to the Minister. More broadly, where do these general duties sit in the hierarchy? If they are not reflected in the licences, while competition law and other regulatory requirements continue to have strong legal force, the duties could become more of a statement of intent than something that shapes how the railway is regulated. I beg to move.

Clause 19: Safety duty of Ministers and ORR

Amendment 131 moved by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

131: Clause 19, page 11, line 31, insert—

“(aa) the exercise by Great British Railways of its statutory functions, and”

Member’s explanatory statement: This amendment adds Great British Railways to the parties with safety duties under Clause 19.

My speech: what a pleasure it is to be back on the Railways Bill with a dozen transport nerds. It is such a wonderful way to spend my Monday evening. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that I have been talking about climate change for 38 years, and I am barely closer to what I was talking about at the very beginning.

I have Amendments 131, 132, 144 and 338 in this group. I want to explore the tension between safety and competition in the Bill. As the Railways Bill retains the competition law framework established during privatisation—in fact, it extends it further—we can call it the ultimate legal framework for the entire Bill. The concerns go beyond the duty to promote competition. Under Section 67(3) of the Railways Act 1993, the Office of Rail and Road has significant powers to enforce competition law alongside the Competition and Markets Authority. These are much stronger powers than simply encouraging competition.

The problem is that the Bill gives these competition functions priority over several other responsibilities, including the ORR’s general duties and, in some circumstances, its safety duties. It also limits the guidance that UK and Scottish Ministers can give the ORR on competition matters. In effect, competition regulation is being given priority over wider public interest decisions and democratic oversight, and we have to ask whether that is appropriate for a publicly-owned railway. Why should we carry forward and even extend a competition framework inherited from privatisation rather than putting the public interest at the centre of how our railways operate?

There is some reassurance in the fact that safety functions are protected in several of these provisions, but that does not resolve every potential conflict between safety and competition regulation. Wherever those responsibilities could pull in different directions the Government need to explain how that conflict will be resolved and why competition should ever take precedence over safety. That is my Amendment 131.

On Amendment 132, the new safety duty on Ministers and the ORR in Clause 19 is quite shocking: they

“must take into account the need to protect all persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways”.

This clearly has an exemption for competition regulation, which can only mean that, in a trade-off between competition and public safety, competition will win. That exemption should be struck, and we need a proper explanation of why it is present in the first place.

Clause 19’s safety duty does not currently apply to GBR, only to the ORR and Ministers. I would like to know the reason for that. Is it also in any way competition related? Amendment 131 would explicitly add Great British Railways to the safety duty in Clause 19 so that it applied not just to Ministers and the ORR. As we move to a new rail structure, it should be clear that Great British Railways has a responsibility to put safety first when carrying out its functions. It is difficult to see why decisions about competition should be exempt from a duty that exists to protect passengers and railway workers. Competition decisions can have wider consequences for how the railway operates, and safety has to be part of those considerations.

More broadly, I am concerned that the Bill gives too much weight to competition rather than putting public interest at the core of our railways. The purpose of our rail network should be to provide safe, reliable and well-integrated services for passengers, not to create more opportunities for commercial operators.

On Amendment 144, ultimately the ORR’s safety function should be above all other duties. This is a railway, one of the most potentially dangerous industries there is. It is not satisfactory even if safety is formally equivalent to competition. Rather, safety must take precedence over competition regulation. That is why Amendment 144 proposes a priority of safety functions clause, ensuring that there cannot be a trade-off between competition and the safety of the public and rail workers under any circumstances and that this parity is made clear and distinct in law. Taken together, these amendments would strengthen the safety duties on Great British Railways and the ORR and make clear that safety must come first.

Public ownership has to be about more than just changing who runs our railways. It should mean putting passengers, railway workers and public interest ahead of competition. That is why I have called for Clause 20 to be removed from the Bill. We do not believe that a statutory duty to promote competition belongs in this Bill. It puts competition at the centre of the regulator’s responsibilities rather than focusing on what passengers need from their railway. Plus, there is already too little in this Bill about tackling the climate crisis and making rail travel affordable. We should be looking at how to get more people on to public transport, reduce reliance on cars and make sure that taking the train is a realistic option for people on ordinary incomes. Those should be central priorities for our railway.

On to Amendment 338, there is the question of the status of the ORR’s safety duties under the Deregulation Act 2015, inserted by the Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) Order 2017. This is not mentioned in the Bill as it stands, but this probing amendment suggests that the ORR be removed from that order. The reason is not, in this case, anti-growth. It is because, as few people seem to be aware, it relates to the ORR’s safety function specifically requiring it to consider the importance of exercising the regulatory function in a way which ensures that

“regulatory function is taken only when it is needed, and … any action taken is proportionate”.

Although this, in itself, does not override safety duties, it is clearly intended to influence decisions about what to investigate, when to intervene and whether to use formal enforcement. It is fair to say that it fundamentally has the effect of putting safety enforcement below competition regulation in a hierarchical sense. I beg to move.

Public Office Bill Committee Stage Day 1

Published on by jonesjb

My speech to my amendments on the first day of committee stage: I have six amendments in this group and will speak first on five of them—Amendments 64, 65, 67, 69 and 140. The purpose of these is to clarify which functions of higher education providers fall within the scope of Schedule 2, so that there is greater certainty about where the duty of candour and accountability apply.

The Government have acknowledged that universities perform public functions, including teaching and awarding degrees, but their position leaves important questions about the boundaries of those functions to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. What about activities such as student welfare and pastoral support, safeguarding, accommodation, complaints and appeals, or the way that universities respond to serious incidents? These are a big part of what universities do, and the decisions they make can have a huge and lasting impact on students’ lives.

These amendments spell out exactly which of universities’ activities I am talking about; they cover admissions and assessment, academic progression and disciplinary processes, student support and welfare, safeguarding, accommodation, complaints and appeals, and responses to serious incidents, including student deaths and subsequent investigations. These amendments seek to give us a clearer picture of which university activities should count as public functions and would help ensure that the right standards of openness and accountability apply.

The importance of this question becomes painfully clear when we hear from families who have lost a child while they were at university. A parent who contacted me through ForThe100 told me that their son died by suicide in April 2022, just four hours after the university had informed him that a restriction it had already imposed upon him had been escalated to a complete ban from campus. The family had not known that he was facing disciplinary action. After his death, the parent described to me a long and difficult process of seeking answers, including the struggle to obtain information and get the university to answer their questions properly. Even after the inquest, their attempts to obtain a full response to their concerns continued for a further 18 months. Families should not have to spend years seeking information, answers and accountability while they are already dealing with an unimaginable loss.

The National Review of Higher Education Student Suicide Deaths, published in 2025, recorded concerns from families about transparency, communication and their involvement in investigations. It recommended a duty of candour tailored to higher education, and those concerns underline why we need to be clear about the responsibilities that apply when universities make decisions around students’ welfare and respond to serious incidents.

A government letter of 1 September recognises that some university activities are public functions, but it leaves just too many questions about the other important areas. It does not make clear how the ethical conduct requirements in Chapter 2 are intended to apply to universities. These amendments would help to clear that up. They would give universities, students and their families a clearer understanding of where these responsibilities lie, while still allowing individual circumstances to be considered.

If there are concerns that extending these provisions to higher education would mean that universities become responsible for providing healthcare or guaranteeing every student’s safety, I can reassure your Lordships that this is not what these amendments are about. There is an important difference between a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm and a duty to be open and honest about what happened if something goes wrong. The Bill’s duty of candour and assistance is about openness and co-operation in the inquiries and the investigations it covers; it means being prepared to explain what an institution knew, what it did and why.

I will put four specific questions to the Minister, reflecting concerns raised by families through ForThe100 on the Government’s intended treatment of higher education. Do the Government consider pastoral support, student welfare, safeguarding and university-arranged accommodation to be activities forming part of the provision of higher education? Does that extend to academic disciplinary processes, student complaints and appeals, and responses to serious incidents including student deaths? If these are public functions, is there a reason that they should not be expressly identified in Schedule 2, rather than leaving the boundaries to case-by-case judicial interpretation? How do the Government aim to ensure that Chapter 2, on ethical requirements, applies to the relevant public functions of higher education providers? I would really like the Government to explain how the Bill will operate where a university’s activities involve both public functions and arrangements with private contractors.

My Amendment 66A moves on to all of your Lordships, because I do not understand why politicians like us should be held to a lower standard of honesty than other public officials. That is what this amendment is about. Why are Members of this House and other UK Parliaments and Assemblies excluded from this new offence of misleading the public? Is it clear enough when the offence applies? The Government have decided that intentionally or recklessly deceiving the public on matters of serious public concern should be a criminal offence for public officials. We are talking about serious deception proved to the criminal standard in court, not making a mistake, getting something wrong or changing your mind. The offence will apply to Ministers, civil servants, police officers, members of the Armed Forces and other public officials, but Members of this House, the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly are excluded. I simply do not understand why that distinction has been drawn. If the purpose is to improve accountability in public life, should that principle not also extend to this House—to people who actually make laws, scrutinise the Government and speak to the public on matters of national importance?

There is a second issue that this amendment is for: uncertainty about when someone is acting in their official capacity. The Bill makes the offence dependent on a person acting in their capacity as a public official or public authority, but it does not clearly define what that means. People should be able to understand the law before they act. It has been raised that the Law Commission previously warned, in its examination of misconduct in public office, that the meaning of actingin an official capacity was insufficiently clear. The Bill abolishes the common law offence of misconduct in public office because of the uncertainty around it, yet the new offence of misleading the public relies on almost the same language. Should we not be careful not to repeat the very problem that the Bill is meant to address? I was going to talk about the case against Boris Johnson, but I will skip that.

When creating a new criminal offence, should Parliament not seek to provide as much clarity as possible, rather than leave key questions about its scope to be settled by the courts? This amendment would bring Members of this House, the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly all into the definition of public official for the purposes of duty of candour and the offence of misleading the public. It would apply the principle of accountability to those who make our laws as well as those who implement them.

Secondly, it would protect parliamentary proceedings and political opinion. Nothing said or done in the proceedings of any UK Parliament or legislature could be caught by these offences. The amendment would also expressly protect expressions of honestly held political belief or opinion by Members of those Parliaments and Assemblies, so it is not about restricting debate in Parliament or criminalising political differences; it is about holding politicians to account for serious deception.

Thirdly, it would clarify when certain officeholders are acting in their official capacity and would provide that Members of this House and other UK Parliaments and Assemblies, Ministers and specified mayors are treated as acting in their official role when speaking to the public about matters of serious public concern, while they are still free to express their political views. Communications made in a judicial capacity or concerning solely private life, family life or private business are obviously excluded.

Fourthly, it would clarify what constitutes harm for the purposes of the offence. It would provide that harm can include undermining public confidence in public authorities, public officials, the exercise of public functions or democratic processes. Then it identifies six purposes for which such a communication might be made. It covers situations where deception could have serious consequences, such as misleading the public to justify military action, concealing risks to public safety or misrepresenting how public money is spent.

This is Bill needs clarification. I have a lot of sympathy for almost all the amendments that we have heard today. I urge the Minister and the Government to actually listen and act on what they are hearing. There are difficult questions where criminal law and political speech intersect, but difficulty is not a reason to look away; it is a reason for us to engage, examine the wording carefully and get it right. I support Amendment 66 from Lady Coffey, as well.

Hansard record here: Public Office (Accountability) Bill – Hansard – UK Parliament