Author: jonesjb

Railways Bill Committee Stage Day 3

Published on by jonesjb

Amendment 78A moved by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

78A: Schedule 2, page 79, line 2, at end insert—

“(b) protect or improve the environment or mitigating or adapting to climate change, or(c) secure, maintain or improve the accessibility of railway passenger services, station services, railway infrastructure or rolling stock for disabled persons.”

Member’s explanatory statement: This amendment broadens the exclusion from subsidy control rules to include financial assistance with the primary purpose of environmental protection or accessibility.

My speech: I am not going to speak briefly. I am probably going to compete with Lord Moylan and Lord Harper, in the length of my comments and the thoroughness with which I cover the amendments. I have put my name on all amendments in this group, and I care very much that they are properly debated and understood.

The aim of Amendment 78A is to broaden the exclusions from the subsidy control rules. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 has created a fundamental split in the Bill which translates directly into how policy will be made and what can be done with public money. As I understand it, only funding for the primary purpose of infrastructure under Clause 3(1)(a) is excluded from the subsidy control rules. The implication is that everything else will be subject to them. I think that helps to explain the split between the different budgets, with infrastructure funded through the funding period review while operations and other areas, including capital projects and enhancements, come through the spending review, with a close eye being kept on cross-subsidy. That seems to run against the long-standing aim of GBR, going back to 2021, of bringing infrastructure and operations together. The Rail Industry Association warned last year that if track and train integration is to be achieved both need to be covered by the same funding process.

However, my specific concern with this amendment is public interest policy-making, particularly accessibility and climate. For accessibility, will these rules make it harder to reform and integrate funding programmes and plan investment in a rational way so that we can make progress as quickly as possible? On climate, the issue is even more complicated. Many of the things we have been talking about, and will talk about later today, are vital to increasing passenger numbers and shifting people from cars to rail. These could potentially be subject to subsidy control rules, which include things such as electrification and other capital investment. Environmental measures are also subject to additional requirements under the Subsidy Control Act—so this is a complicated and underdiscussed area, and I would like the Minister to explain the practical impact of these rules on accessibility, climate funding and policymaking.

This amendment would create exclusions for both, when the primary purpose of the financial assistance is to protect or improve the environment, mitigate or adapt to climate change, or secure and improve accessibility for disabled people. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance about how these subsidy control rules will work in practice and whether the Government would be prepared to look at exclusions of this kind.

My Amendment 130A builds on Amendment 129 from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which I support, but I want to ask whether we could be a bit more ambitious. We are legislating for a new Great BritishRailways at a time when we face both a climate emergency and a biodiversity crisis. We should be asking what this new body can actively do to address those challenges, rather than simply ensuring that it does not make them worse. The railway estate gives us an extraordinary opportunity. Network Rail is one of the largest landowners in Britain, with around 52,000 hectares of land. Its own description of the railway estate is as a “green corridor”, recognising that railway land can connect fragmented habitats across the country. I suggest that we find a way to put that opportunity into the Bill. Imagine a continuous green corridor running from Penzance to John O’ Groats, following the railway where possible—not necessarily a continuous strip of woodland or one uniform habitat, but a connected network of grasslands, wetlands, scrub, woodlands, ponds and other habitats joined together by the railway estate.

The railway already provides the basis for that network. Network Rail itself recognises this and acknowledges that the railway estate “provides a habitat” for a wide range of species, so that is a vital starting point, but the targets that Network Rail has set itself are rather vague. Its 2035 targets talk about managing biodiversity

“in a way that protects and enhances”

it and says that it will

“lead the way in land management”.

Now, those are good ambitions, but they do not tell us what success looks like. That is why this amendment asks for

“measurable targets for biodiversity recovery, habitat creation and restoration … connectivity and renewable electricity generation”.

I would like us to imagine what it would mean if, every time a railway line passes through a fragmented landscape, we ask whether the railway estate could help to reconnect it. If we did that across the whole network, we could begin to create something really significant: a national nature recovery network, running alongside our national railway network. It seems to me exactly the sort of long-term thinking that we should be building into GBR from the beginning.

The amendment would require GBR to manage its land as part of a connected national network for nature recovery. That means working with local nature recovery strategies, restoring habitats, improving ecological connectivity and creating wildlife corridors “wherever reasonably practical”. We are not asking railway engineers to become conservationists or putting nature ahead of railway safety. The amendment is deliberately framed around what is practical, but we have a chance to recognise that the railway estate is not just an operational asset—it is also land running through some of the most fragmented and depleted landscapes in the country, and GBR will have the responsibility for managing it.

We are asking GBR to maximise renewable electricity generation from its own infrastructure, from station rooms to depots, car parks and other suitable sites, and, where it can, to use that electricity to power railway operations. Where the railway has suitable land or infrastructure for generating clean electricity, it should make the most of it. The amendment also asks for “measurable targets” and a published plan, with progress reported annually. That is important, because we have seen environmental commitments before. Network Railalready has biodiversity commitments and has recognised the role that its estate can play in nature recovery. The question is whether we want to give those ambitions a statutory footing in the creation of Great British Railways, and the Bill gives us a rare opportunity to do that. The railway is a national network; its land should be part of a national network for nature recovery.

Amendment 130B, on nature’s rights, takes the same principle a little further. I support the idea that GBR should actively contribute to nature recovery, but could we go beyond saying that nature is something GBR should take into account and instead recognise that healthy ecosystems are fundamental to our own well-being and to the economy on which we all depend? The amendment would require GBR to recognise the intrinsic value of nature and to protect, restore and enhance nature when exercising its functions. It would also require GBR to consider cumulative and indirect harm, the needs of future generations and the possibility of restoration and regeneration.

That is an important shift in how we think about infrastructure. We tend to ask whether a railway project is technically possible and financially viable. Those questions obviously matter, but we should also be asking what the project means for the living systems around it and whether there is a way of achieving the same objective while causing less harm. There is of course a wider debate about this already taking place in the House. The Nature’s Rights Bill, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is currently making its way through our House, and takes a much bigger step of recognising nature as a legal subject and establishing an integrated framework for protecting its rights.

I am not suggesting that we try to put the whole of that Bill into the Railways Bill, but it is an opportunity to take some of its thinking and apply it to GBR. We are creating a new organisation with enormous responsibility for land, infrastructure and investment decisions across the country. We should build into that organisation from the beginning the principle that nature is not simply an externality to be considered after the economic and engineering decisions have already been made; it should be part of the overriding decision itself. I saw the Minister smiling there; I hope that means he is in total agreement with what I am saying.

I support Amendments 93, 111 and 129. Amendment 93, on climate resilience, needs to be central to the railway strategy. We know that extreme heat, flooding, drought and soil moisture changes are already disrupting the railway. I know there are some hot weather procedures in place, but we need to ask whether we are testing and designing the railway for the climate we actually face rather than the climate we used to have. The Minister said some quite supportive things about this yesterday, and I hope he feels free to repeat them today.

The regulator has previously found that climate adaptation planning was not keeping pace with the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather. We have seen the consequences during heatwaves, with speed restrictions and failures affecting services. Some overhead line equipment, for example, was designed around operating temperatures of up to 38 degrees, yet we are increasingly seeing temperatures approaching that level. I recognise that Network Rail is already doing a lot of work on climate adaptation, and there are good examples, but that work is not necessarily consistent. Responsibilities have historically been divided between different organisations and different owners of track, stations and land, and the creation of GBR obviously gives us the opportunity to change that. We cannot keep treating these events as exceptional and simply responding when they happen—we actually have to design, test and maintain our railway on the basis that extreme weather is now a serious and growing threat to the network.

I strongly support Amendment 313, tabled by Lord Russell. It is an important amendment, because we are in a climate emergency, yet England has had virtually no new electrification for quite a number of years. There are two sides to this. We need to make the railway resilient to the climate change that is already happening, but we also need to reduce the railway’s own emissions. We cannot just adapt to a changing climate while continuing to build and operate infrastructure in ways that add to the problem.

I welcome the proposal for a framework looking at both climate resilience and decarbonisation, but I have tabled Amendment 330J because we need to go further. A framework is a good starting point, but I want to see a plan with binding targets, timescales, funding and a clear programme of delivery. Scotland gives us a useful example of what that can look like. Scotland has a rail services decarbonisation action plan, and it is continuing with the rolling programme of electrification. Three-quarters of passenger journeys are already made on electric trains, and the Scottish Government say they remain committed to further electrification. Of course, you have to remember that Britain lags behind much of Europe: 60% of passenger services run on electric trains here, compared to 74% in Germany and 85% in France.

Electrification is not just about emissions. Those trains can be faster, quieter and more efficient. They can increase capacity and reduce reliance on diesel. A railway powered by electricity can increasingly benefit from the move towards renewable energy. We should not talk about rail decarbonisation as though it is some additional environmental project that we might get round to if there is enough money left; it has to happen as soon as possible.

Every year, we delay decisions on infrastructure that can last for decades, which makes it harder and more expensive to decarbonise the railways. The same applies to resilience: we know that some parts of the network are vulnerable to flooding, extreme heat, landslides, drought or coastal erosion, so we should identify those risks now and have a funded programme for dealing with them. New infrastructure should be designed for the climate we expect over its lifetime, not simply the climate we have experienced in the past.

We need binding targets for reducing emissions, a comprehensive assessment of climate risks, a prioritised programme of infrastructure improvements, funding arrangements, whole-life carbon assessment and annual reporting. GBR would also be required to operateconsistently within the plan. I support Amendment 313 because it moves us in the right direction. We need to move from identifying what needs to be done to committing ourselves to doing it. This is the opportunity—let us all go green and build climate resilience and decarbonisation into the railway from the beginning, rather than leaving it for somebody else to do.

I intervened again later: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister and his team for their response. I will just make a comment or two. I am in such awe of the Minister’s extensiveknowledge of railways that I always find his replies in these meetings very comforting. It is only when I walk away and start rereading them that I think, “Hold on”. I will be coming back to these issues on Report. That is a warning, not a threat.

Lord Russell, used a word that I had not used but will incorporate into my thinking: “vulnerability”. I think that that is what we are talking about with all these things. He is so environmentally aware that it is fantastic. It was good to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said about corridors in other countries. It comes back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, that none of this is new. We can do this. We have examples that we can take from other countries and even other railways.

Prince Philip once said to me—quite unkindly, I thought—that the problem with us Greens was that we never gave anyone else any credit for what they did. I took that to heart, because we do not. We think that other people never go far enough. It is never enough. We always want more. Lady Willis, was absolutely right to say that Network Rail has been doing stuff—I really should accept that. The fire risks and the flooding are things that we really need to keep down.

To the point made by Lord Hampton, of course this all should have started 10 years ago—or 20, or 30, or 40. We have known about the climate crisis and its approach for well over 50 years. We should have been thinking ahead then, but we were not. This goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, was saying. Yes, the Tories were better in some ways, but they are regressing now. Had they listened to the Green Party, HS2 would not have started where it started and we would not have had the bat tunnel fiasco. Please remember that the Greens were right back then and we are right now.

I intervened again: I will speak to my stand part notice opposing Clause 20. A duty is being placed on the Office of Rail and Road that I do not understand, which is about promoting competition. I am trying to probe exactly what the Government mean by the ORR’s duty to “promote competition”. I am concerned that there is a lack of clarity here between promoting competition and regulating competition. The ORR already has a role in regulating competition under the Railways Act 1993, but Clause 20 appears to give it a separate duty to promote competition. I would like to understand what exactly that means in practice and why it is necessary.

This is not an issue that I will bring back on Report, because I cannot quite put enough passion into it, but we see that there is potential tension here because the ORR has a number of other responsibilities, including safety, access and economic regulation. The areas in which it is required to promote competition include important parts of the railway’s network services. I would like the Minister to explain how this new duty will interact with those other responsibilities. In particular, if there is a conflict between promoting competition and another statutory duty or the Government’s rail strategy, which takes precedence? I am not convinced that we need a general duty on the regulator to promote competition in the Bill.

I intervened again: Passengers’ journeys are very rarely just a train journey—there might be a bus to a station, a train and then another bus, or tram, or whatever—and if those parts of the journey do not connect properly, the whole journey becomes more difficult. I know this from personal experience. A missed connection, a long wait, separate tickets or poor passenger information can all make public transport less attractive. The National Transport Survey found that for England in 2023, 50% of public transport trips were across more than one type of public transport. That is why integration is one of the strongest levers we have for getting more people to choose public transport.

The Railways Act 1993 included a duty on the Secretary of State and the regulator to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system, and that duty has now been dropped. Amendment 128 would put some of that principle back into the Bill, by requiring the Secretary of State and GBR

“to promote the integration of railway passenger services with—(a) bus and coach services, (b) tram and light rail, and (c) micromobility.”

I also support Amendment 105 from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, which approaches the same issue from within the railway strategy. It specifically talks about improving connections and co-ordinating timetables, ticketing and passenger information, and includes ferry services. The two amendments complement each other rather well. One establishes integration as a duty, while the other sets out some of the practical things integration should mean for passengers. This is not just about making journeys more convenient; if we want people to make more journeys by public transport, the whole journey needs to work.

I ask the Minister why this duty to integrate transport has been removed from the Bill, and what will replace it. Will GBR have a clear responsibility to work with local and regional transport authorities to improve connections between different modes? Will the Government consider putting some of the practical elements in Amendment 10 —timetables, ticketing and passenger information—into the statutory framework? We have an opportunity here to create a railway that works as part of a wider public transport network, rather than as a system operating on its own. That should be one of the purposes of GBR from the very start.

Hansard record here: Railways Bill – Hansard – UK Parliament

IPP Prisoners: Recall System

Published on by jonesjb

I am sure the Minister understands that some of the IPP prisoners are so badly damaged by their long incarceration that they would find it extremely difficult to move into mainstream society. Is enough help given to them—for example, housing, financial and medical support, if that is what is needed?

Lord Lemos replied for HMG:

That is precisely the reason why, as we think through how we will end this sentence, we are thinking about what support we need to put in place, both before and after their release. I refer to the work my noble friend Lord Timpson did on the IPP action plan, which sought to ensure that IPP prisoners were in the right sort of prison for them and were getting support while they were still in prison. However, I assure the noble Baroness that the question of support before and after release is top of our list of things to worry about.

Hansard record here: IPP Prisoners: Recall System – Hansard – UK Parliament

Government Political Priorities and Legislative Agenda

Published on by jonesjb

I congratulate Lord Hunt, on bringing this debate. I also want to apologise to him, because I am always surprised by how passionately he talks about climate change. That is on me. Sorry about that. It is wonderful to listen to.

I have met the new Prime Minister a few times and I have a lovely photograph on my phone of him and me at Glastonbury last year. I sort of thought we could work together, but the more I see what is happening and going through, the more I am beginning to think it will not be possible. It seems as if the slow-moving, stagnant mechanism of government has got its claws into him and he is not thinking very creatively any more. I hope I am wrong. We shall see over the next few weeks and months.

I want to mention three things that are crucial for the future of this Labour Government, which will all help society as well as the environment. We have to accept that climate chaos is the new normal. Thousands of people died this summer in the heat and that is going to keep happening if we are not very careful about adapting to it. People arriving at A&E with heat exhaustion and so on is also going to be the new normal. This Government must not make it worse by going ahead with the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oil field. That is folly. What they should be doing is what they have just scrapped—putting solar panels on every supermarket car park and every roof, everywhere they possibly can. That is the sort of thing they ought to be doing to be creative about combating climate change. We need to adapt to hot summers. A tiny measure would be to put shutters on all the windows, as in France. I have lots of ideas and I am quite happy to chat them through.

The second thing is to help save the NHS, not by privatising it but by remembering that prevention is better than cure. If you cut pollution, you cut the number of people going into hospital. You cut the number of children whose lungs are so stunted by pollution that they have lifelong problems with their breathing. Well done to Sadiq Khan here in London, where he has massively cut air pollution. We should have low emission zones across the whole country, as they do in mainland Europe.

Thirdly, one big way to reduce pollution would be to take the water companies into public ownership. The Prime Minister mentioned those words yesterday. I would like to think he means renationalisation, but I do not know any more, because he keeps changing his mind. I have stopped paying the sewage part of my bill. I asked Thames Water how much that part was. I was happy to pay for the water, obviously, but I was not prepared to pay for the sewage it was dumping in the Thames. It told me that it did not work out the bill like that, so at the moment I am not paying my bill. We will see if it takes me to court before it goes bankrupt. We stopped the poll tax with a campaign of non-payment. Civil disobedience is possibly the only way to fight companies such as the water companies which are operating in a way that is a disbenefit to the whole of society. I say to the Government that the Green Party always has loads of very practical ideas and I am very happy to share them.

Hansard record here: Government Political Priorities and Legislative Agenda – Hansard – UK Parliament

Summer Drought: Future Supply Disruption

Published on by jonesjb

In the past few weeks the Prime Minister has been talking about public control of water companies. What we have had since privatisation has been a disaster. Yesterday he actually mentioned public ownership. Does that mean renationalisation in other words? By the way, Havant Thicket is a disaster and I would be very happy to meet the Minister to explain exactly why and bring some campaigners as well. I save water in water butts.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock replied for HMG:

I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness. She may be better off meeting the Water Minister, to be honest, but I am always happy to meet her. She raises important points, but we have to get this right. On public ownership, my understanding is that that same report stressed that public ownership was not the same as nationalisation. I need to understand better what the different options are.

Hansard record here:Summer Drought: Future Supply Disruption – Hansard – UK Parliament

Public Office (Accountability) Bill Second Reading

Published on by jonesjb

I support the Bill and hope that the Government will listen to some of the amendments that will be tabled, because it can be improved. It seems that noble Lords from all around the House agree that it is a stain on the country when families who have suffered so much should then have to fight the state for the truth and for understanding that it did wrong.

Public institutions should tell the truth, even, or particularly, when the truth is uncomfortable. Hillsborough should have changed this culture, but again and again what we are seeing is the same instinct—the same culture—to protect the institution rather than the people it has failed. All tribute to the Hillsborough Law Now campaign for the fact that it pushed so hard and made us listen. In fact, many of us have been calling this the “Hillsborough Bill” from the start.

Of course, this goes much wider than Hillsborough. We have heard of the incredible losses that people experienced, but there is the Post Office scandal, the infected blood scandal, the Grenfell scandal and the Manchester Arena scandal—scandal after scandal where institutions cared more about protecting their reputation than they did about helping the people who have been impacted.

The Bill will be an important step in changing that culture, but only if it is tough and only if we understand that you do not change a culture just with words. A lot of processes have to really work inside it. For example, making something a criminal offence will not change that culture on its own. I welcome Clause 10 and its duty on public authorities to promote and maintain ethical conduct, but that needs to mean more than just another policy document. It needs leadership and proper monitoring, alongside practical codes of practice. The question should not simply be, “Has the law been complied with?” It should be, “Has the culture changed?”

The Bill rightly creates consequences when a public authority fails to meet its duty of candour, including the possibility of financial penalties. But if a public authority is fined, it is the taxpayer who pays. How on earth is that a deterrent? We really have to rethink these things.

We need to be clear about who is accountable when there is serious institutional failure. I am not suggesting that every institutional failure is the personal responsibility of a chief executive, but where those at the top are responsible, there needs to be a clear line of accountability. Obviously, this would apply to water companies as much as any other sort of organisation. Codes of practice mean that people can speak and can be judged on what they say.

I emphasise the role of whistleblowing. I have had an experience with a whistleblower myself, and if I have time at the end I might talk about my little brush with a public institution that lied to me and distorted things. It shows that almost every public institution will hide its wrongdoing if it possibly can.

Of course, all this raises the wider question: what about politicians? How are we going to pass a law that does not include ourselves? Why is it that everybody else has to tell the truth but not elected politicians and Peers? That is very wrong. It is wrong to pass a Bill that does not include us. I am not questioning parliamentary privilege—I accept that we can protect political debate—but we have to draw a line around deliberate deception. If we are prepared to demand candour from public servants, surely we should be prepared to ask it of ourselves.

Do we have the legal capacity to deliver the Bill? The Government anticipate an increase in legally aided inquest cases from a few hundred to potentially over 11,000 per year. I hope this will be off-set by the fact that the duty of candour will mean swift justice as opposed to long, drawn-out cases. That would be a really positive result.

University life ought to be covered in the Bill as well. I am not sure which bits are covered and which are not. How will the duties of candour and ethical conduct work in practice in higher education? What happens after an inquiry or inquest? What is the point of establishing the truth if nobody is responsible for making sure that changes happen?

My experience of being lied to by a public institution was being lied to by the Met. Back in 2012, somebody in my team at the London Assembly suggested that I ask for my record with the police. Other people had been doing it. The police very kindly sent me a report. They had me on their domestic extremist database, which obviously, for a rabid Green like me, was useful notoriety. I really did not mind at all. There were only 17 entries on this report and every single one was something that I had boasted about, either in newsletters or on social media—speaking to a rally in Trafalgar Square, going on a bike ride with some protesters and that sort of thing. I laughed at this. I thought it was so trivial: why on earth had they spent all those years trying to compile a report on me when I was telling them what I was doing anyway?

Later, however, a whistleblower came forward and told me that in the same month after I had asked for my report, he saw three officers engaged in physically destroying a number of police records by shredding. He believed that all those records were related to me. There were in excess of 30 reports. One of those officers then began to electronically delete a number of police records from a police database. Again, the whistleblower thought those records were about me. He had an absolutely miserable time afterwards in the Met and finally left. He said that he did not become a police officer

“to monitor politicians or political parties, nor to pay casual disregard to policy and procedure”.

Whistleblowers are people who we have to protect very seriously. We have to make sure that they are not driven out of their jobs by people who do not want to be reported on.

I very much support the Bill. I hope that we can amend it and make it much better.

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

Railways Bill Committee Stage Day 1

Published on by jonesjb

I said in my speech at Second Reading that I welcome the Bill; the Green Party has long argued that our railway should be run as a public service, not for private profit, and that is exactly where my five amendments here are going: they all make basically the same point. It was very kind of Lord Moylan, to point out that he did not agree with me; in fact, it sort of made me feel slightly better because, worryingly, there are times when I do agree with him.

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.

My Oral Question on By-catch

Published on by jonesjb

Today I asked HMG when they intend to publish the Bycatch Risk Prioritisation Framework

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) replied for HMG: A report on the bycatch risk prioritisation framework will be published by the end of the year. The framework will identify where we expect bycatch risks to be greatest across the UK. This will help us to target monitoring and mitigation efforts on the species, areas, fishing gears and fisheries that need the most attention. The report will provide a snapshot of current understanding, while the framework will be updated over time.

My follow up question:

I thank the Minister for her Answer. At the moment, every year, fishing boats are catching—this is an underestimate because not all boats are monitored—at least 10,000 seabirds, 1,000 cetaceans such as harbour porpoises, common dolphins, humpback whales and minke whales, and around 500 seals. That is absolutely appalling. Will the Minister take that back to this new Government, who want to do the right thing? When will the Government publish bycatch action plans for seabirds, cetaceans, seals and protected fish species? When will the Government require remote electronic monitoring on all fishing boats in UK waters, including those under 10 metres in length?

Hansard record here

Railways Bill Second Reading

Published on by jonesjb

I do not say this often, but I welcome the Bill. The Green Party has long argued that our railways should be run as a public service and not for private profit. After decades of failed fragmentation, spiralling costs and confusing accountability, bringing the railway back under public leadership is important and overdue. The Bill is, therefore, a step in the right direction.

If we are creating Great British Railways, we must create a railway that is genuinely great: one that is affordable, accessible, integrated and capable of helping us meet the defining challenge of our age, which is the climate and nature crisis. At present, the Bill does notachieve that. It lacks ambition. For example, Great British Railways will have numerous duties, so why does the Bill not contain a clear duty to increase passenger numbers?

I welcome the target for shifting freight from lorries on to trains, but why is there no equivalent ambition to encourage more people out of their cars and on to trains? To do that, we must make train travel cheap and easy. For millions of people, the biggest barrier to travelling by rail is not whether a train exists but whether they can afford the ticket. Affordable fares are perhaps the single most effective tool available to increase passenger numbers, tackle inequality and reduce car dependence. Yet the Bill contains no explicit duty to promote affordable fares, and changes to the licensing arrangements of Great British Railways could see fares rising as there is less focus on public duties.

There seems to be even less ambition to create one system that covers the whole journey someone might take. As the Minister knows well, this works in Greater London, where TfL runs the London Overground under the mayor’s control. Manchester is moving that way, but what about democratic control over integrated transport for the rest of the cities and regions? People do not think in terms of operators or transport modes; they simply want one journey. Whether someone is connecting from a local bus, a tram, a cycle route or a ferry, the system should feel seamless. Integration should be one of the central purposes of Great British Railways, creating a public transport network where different modes work together rather than competing with one another. I hope that the Government will clarify how the railway will become genuinely integrated with other forms of public transport.

Rail is already one of the lowest-carbon forms of transport. We should be supporting every passenger to choose rail over driving or domestic flying. If we are to meet our legally binding climate targets, modal shift cannot simply be left in policy papers; it should be a statutory objective of the organisation that is responsible for running the railway. Staggeringly, environmental responsibilities appear only fleetingly in the Bill. There is little recognition that our railway must become climate resilient as extreme weather becomes more frequent or that it should contribute to restoring nature alongside the lines it manages. Some 10% of all train services were cancelled or severely delayed in the most recent heatwave in Britain. Last week, I spent six hours getting home instead of three, and I felt lucky to get home at all.

Great British Railways should have a clear public mission that recognises its contribution not only to transport but to our economy, our environment and our wider society. Passengers deserve the reassurance that a publicly owned railway will be judged not simply on financial performance but on whether it provides affordable access to work, education, leisure and family life. Profitable routes should be able to support socially essential services in rural and underserved communities, where success is measured not only in ticket revenue but in reducing isolation, supporting local economies and giving people a genuine alternative to cars. High ticket prices mean empty seats.

Equally important is protecting the workforce that keeps our railways running. I welcome the reassurances that the Government have given regarding the future of the Railways Pension Scheme, providing valuable certainty for thousands of rail workers. The future of Great British Railways will depend as much on the people who run it as it will on the infrastructure they manage.

Of course, the Bill misses one of the biggest opportunities of all: setting Britain on the path towards a fully electrified railway. Britain has spent decades pursuing a stop-start approach to electrifying its rail network. Only 39% or thereabouts of our railway is electrified, which is is well behind many comparable countries. We know what needs to happen. The Climate Change Committee has made it clear that substantially more of the network will need to be electrified if we are to decarbonise rail and meet our climate obligations. Yet the Bill is silent on this.

Finally, I hope that the Government will look carefully at how passengers themselves are represented. A publicly owned railway that fails to listen to the public will have missed the point entirely. Public ownership should not simply change who owns the railway; it should change for whom the railway works. Passengers, disabled people, local communities, rail workers, devolved Governments and regional authorities should all have meaningful opportunities to shape services, investment priorities and future strategies. Improving accessibility will be a huge benefit for our ageing population.

We also need more clarity on how mayoral, local and combined authorities will be able to control investment plans and services. The Green Party has long argued that rail should be viewed not simply as a transport system but as essential national infrastructure for delivering economic opportunity, social justice and climate action. Public ownership is not the destination; it is the foundation. The Bill moves us away from the disastrous experiment of fragmented privatisation—for that, it deserves support —but we should not settle for a railway that merely functions better than before. We should build one that actively reduces carbon emissions, restores nature, connects communities, integrates public transport, makes travel affordable and expands opportunity across every part of the country. Those ambitions really must be written into the Bill itself.

I welcome the Bill’s Second Reading and hope that, during its passage through this House, we can strengthen it so that Great British Railways truly lives up to its name as a railway that is run in the public interest, serving people, communities and the planet for generations to come.

Hansard record here: Railways Bill – Hansard – UK Parliament

Marine Protected Areas

Published on by jonesjb

In the UK, there are 377 marine protected areas, and, of those, only 38 ban the destructive practice of bottom trawling. What makes the Government think that they can do any better in the Sargasso Sea?

Baroness Chapman of Darlington replied to HMG: At risk of stepping on the toes of my noble and good friend Lady Hayman, the Defra Minister, I believe that Defra is either consulting on or has just concluded a consultation on this issue. The Government will be responding very shortly.

Link to the debate here: International Marine Protected Area: Sargasso Sea – Hansard – UK Parliament

Sporting Events Bill Committee Stage day 2

Published on by jonesjb

Schedule 5: Transport provisions

Amendment 59 moved by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

59: Schedule 5, page 42, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) A plan prepared under this Schedule must—(a) have regard to sustainable modes of transport, including public transport, walking and cycling,(b) aim to minimise greenhouse gas emissions associated with travel to and from sporting events, and(c) include arrangements for admission tickets to a sporting event to confer entitlement to travel on specified public transport services serving the event.”

Member’s explanatory statement: This amendment seeks to ensure that transport plans for sporting events promote public transport and other sustainable modes of travel and seek to minimise transport-related emissions, and include integrated ticketing arrangements allowing spectators to travel on public transport using their event tickets.

My speech to the House: I am so sorry I was not at Second Reading. This is very much the sort of thing that I feel very strongly about. My three amendments in this group are on three different topics. One is transport, one is sustainability reporting and the third is on climate duty, all of which I feel very strongly about. I am going to find it hard not to bring these back if there is not progress.

My speech to the House: I am so sorry I was not at Second Reading. This is very much the sort of thing that I feel very strongly about. My three amendments in this group are on three different topics. One is transport, one is sustainability reporting and the third is on climate duty, all of which I feel very strongly about. I am going to find it hard not to bring these back if there is not progress.

It is extraordinary that this week, the hottest June day ever for the UK has been measured in Surrey. We are hotter here than California’s Death Valley, and that is saying something. We really are not weatherproofed and we are not heat-proofed. We are very lucky in this Chamber. I sat in Portcullis House at 9 am this morning: it was baking. We stewed in there. Of course, a lot of people do not have the advantage of air conditioning like this in their offices and in their public places.

I find it extraordinary that, in a week where parts of Britain have once again seen record temperatures, when red warnings have been issued because of extreme heat, and when climate change is impossible to ignore, we are debating a Bill that contains detailed provisions on transport planning for major sporting events but does not mention climate impact once.

Schedule 5 goes into considerable detail about transport plans. It tells organisers what they should consider, how they should co-ordinate and what arrangements should be put in place. Yet there is absolutely nothing about the environmental impact of those transport arrangements. For major sporting events, transport is often the biggest source of emissions. At the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, spectator travel accounted for more than half of the event’s carbon footprint. At Euro 2024, fan travel accounted for almost 80% of emissions. We need to be serious about reducing the environmental impact of major sporting events, and transport is the obvious place to start.

This amendment has two components. The first is that transport plans should have regard to sustainable travel options,

“including public transport, walking and cycling”,

and should seek to “minimise greenhouse gas emissions”. I am sure the Minister is well aware of all the work that happened in Ken Livingstone’s period at the London Assembly: we achieved a lot. The Government already tell us that rail is one of the greenest ways to travel. The Government’s own active travel investment strategy tells us that walking and cycling help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So we need to tell event organisers to take account of what the Government already recognise to be the lower-carbon options. Parliament has gone much further before, such as in the London Olympics, the majority of which was planned in the period of Ken Livingstone in London, and I am suggesting that we can do that in my later Amendment 88.

The second element concerns integrated ticketing. If we want people to leave their cars at home, we need to make the alternative the easy option for them. Again, we have a very recent and very successful example. Every match ticket for Euro 2024 came with a 36-hour public transport pass built into the ticket price. The result was a success, because more than 80% of fans travelled to venues by public transport and fewer than 5% travelled by car, and hundreds ofthousands of rail journeys were made between host cities. This was achieved by making the sustainable choice the convenient choice. Integrated ticketing also benefits spectators. It is easier, cuts costs, and helps avoid congestion around venues. It improves the experience of fans while reducing emissions.

That seems a rare example of a policy that is good for the climate, organisers and the public. If there were ever an example of why we need to be adding in these amendments and preparing for climate resilience travel, it is today, when trains are cancelled due to heat and people are being asked not to travel. The Climate Change Committee has warned that climate risk will increasingly affect the operation of major events. When tens of thousands of people are trying to reach a venue within a narrow timeframe, those risks become particularly acute. What would it look like if we had today’s weather on the day of the Euro 2028 final?

Asking those preparing transport plans to think about sustainability and resilience is absolutely vital. The Government’s own impact assessment argues that legislation is necessary because voluntary arrangements alone do not provide sufficient certainty and consistency. If legislation is needed to ensure transport plans work effectively, why should climate impacts and climate resilience be left entirely to chance? Given the climate challenges we face and the examples of best practice we have already seen across Europe, that seems the very least we can expect.

On Amendment 87, on sustainability reporting, we hear the same language every time a major sporting event is bid for, such as world-leading sustainability, greenest games ever and low-carbon legacy, and it all sounds incredibly impressive at the time. But I get a bit fed up with the gap between the promises made and what actually happens. The Paris Olympics, for example, set itself up as the lowest-carbon games yet. In some respects, it did better than previous Olympics: emissions were lower than London or Rio, largely because they reused venues, cut down on new construction and made some sensible choices about energy and materials. But when you look a bit closer, the picture gets more complicated. Transport still dominated emissions; international travel still drove a huge carbon footprint; and, in the end, we are talking about millions of tonnes of CO2. Yes, there was progress, but it also showed something else very clearly: without proper reporting, it becomes very hard to know what was genuinely achieved, what was just assumed and what was simply good marketing.

That is the point of this amendment. We should not be relying on glossy bid documents and press releases to tell us whether promises have been kept. If we are serious about sustainability being part of these events, then we need to be just as serious about checking afterwards whether it actually happened. Right now, too often, the pattern is this: big promises at the bidding stage; celebration at the event; and very little scrutiny afterwards. This amendment says that, if you make environmental commitments before the event, you report on them afterwards—accurately, obviously—so that we can see what was delivered and was not.

Of course, there are already sustainability requirements for major sporting events, but they are patchy and inconsistent. Some bids are strong, while others arevague; some report properly, while others barely report at all. That makes it very hard to know what is actually being delivered. We need something more uniform: clear expectations that commitments are measured properly and reported before and after the event. Without that consistency, we are not tracking progress; we are just collecting promises—and, quite frankly, people are getting tired of empty promises.

Amendment 88 is on climate duty. We have had this kind of duty at past events—for example, in the London Olympics framework, where sustainability and wider environmental considerations were explicitly built into delivery. What we are seeing here in the Bill is a step backwards from that approach, just at the point when climate risks are more immediate, not less. We are told, including in the Government’s forthcoming major events strategy, that major events will continue to drive economic growth, enhance the UK’s soft power across the globe and strengthen social cohesion. Of course, they can do those things, but they cannot only be about that, and they certainly cannot deliver those benefits at the expense of our climate and environmental responsibility.

At the moment, the Bill is built around delivery, organisation and facilitation, but it is silent on sustainability. We need to put in place something that should already be clear here: a clear duty that, when exercising functions under the Bill, we must have regard to greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable transport, waste reduction and the UK’s climate and environmental targets. We can continue with a system where climate is assumed to be somebody else’s problem, or we can put in place a basic duty that ensures it is properly considered every time decisions are made on these events. I beg to move.

I closed the debate saying: I thank all the Lords who spoke. On the point from Lord Harlech, I am an Arsenal supporter but I do not take responsibility for every single Arsenal supporter. It is appalling that there was so much waste. I thought he showed great discretion in not mentioning that Islington Council is a Labour council—that was very kind and sweet of him. Sadly, the Greens are only in opposition there, so perhaps by 2028 we might have more sway.

Lord Whitty, tabled his Amendment 95 after the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, tabled hers. Had I seen his, I would probably have just supported it, but this has contributed to a debate, so it has been quite useful in that way.

Lord Moynihan, made some very kind comments. After his tabling that regret amendment yesterday on the Climate Change Act, and winning the vote, I really thought I would never speak to him again. But obviously, his kind comments have completely changed my mind. It is a pleasure to agree.

On the difference between the two Mayors of London, Ken Livingstone and Boris, I would just like to say that Ken did all the back-breaking work for the planning and in carrying it through. As for Boris Johnson, to cut any further emissions he put potted plants along the major roads, which was a fairly inadequate way of dealing with carbon emissions. But, you know—that was Boris.

It was fascinating to hear from Lord Mawson, about these different things that happened during the Olympics. I felt quite heavily involved, but I had completely forgotten about the water situation, and all the pre-planning as well, which I did not know anything about. That was all fascinating.

In response to Lord Parkinson, I hope the Conservative Opposition are going to be really heartened by the fact that there was so much support for putting climate change issues into the Bill. Given that we have had support from all around the Chamber, I hope we can do something much more progressive.

Lord Addington, said that really, this is an obvious thing to do. The Minister knows I have huge respect for her and for her work here, but also at the London Assembly. But the Government have a problem here. With so much unanimity on this issue, the Government have to give way a little bit on this—a bit more than they perhaps want to.

Quite honestly, something that annoys me again and again with this Labour Government is that they talk about climate change, but they just do not get it. They do not see how to apply climate change measures to all the legislation they are putting through. The fact that it was completely left out, especially the transport sustainability issues, I just find astonishing. So, I will be pushing on this. The Government have to be seen to be aware not only of climate change but of the measures we can bring in to improve it.

I do not want to overstate the case, but we are responsible for future generations here. This really matters. I would love to be included in the discussions—although the Minister might not want me there. But if I can be, that would be great. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

Amendment 70 (to Amendment 69) moved by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

70: After subsection (1A)(b) insert—

“(c) measures to improve the resilience of sporting infrastructure against the impacts of climate change, including flooding, extreme weather and heat.”

Member’s explanatory statement: This amendment adds climate resilience to the list of considerations to be made by national authorities providing financial assistance to sporting events.

My speech to the House: I fully support Amendment 69 in the name of Lord Addington. Obviously, major sporting events generate significant commercial benefits, but we have to ask what their legacy will be or could be. Too often we celebrate the spectacle, the television audiences and the economic boost, but the local clubs, pitches and volunteers, which sustain sport every week of the year, may see little benefit.

Amendment 69 seeks to address that by creating an expectation that those who benefit from major sporting events should also invest in grass-roots sport, community facilities and participation. After all, elite sport does not emerge from nowhere. Every international player and every Olympian starts somewhere. They start on local pitches, in community halls, in amateur clubs and in local swimming pools, with volunteer coaches giving up evenings and weekends. In many places, the local sports club is one of the few remaining community institutions where people of different ages and backgrounds come together regularly. So I warmly support the principle that grass-roots foundations, on which all sport ultimately depends, should be strengthened.

My Amendment 70 takes that further to add that the climate resilience for grass-roots sport should be included too. This is a month when I was locked out of my office because of potential flooding and, of course, we now have this incredible heatwave, so I argue that this amendment seems particularly relevant.

When we talk about investing in grass-roots facilities, we must also talk about protecting them. Across the country, grass-roots sport is already experiencing the effects of climate change. Football matches are cancelled because pitches are waterlogged, clubs face increasing repair costs after flooding and storms, and facilities are damaged by extreme weather. Heatwaves are clearly creating new challenges for us all, and these are real present-day problems for sports up and down the country.

Estimates suggest that between 120,000 and 150,000 grass-roots football matches are cancelled each season because pitches are unplayable due to rain and flooding. In parts of the country, pitches are already losing weeks of playable time every year because of changing weather patterns, and every cancelled match means lost revenue for clubs, disruption for volunteers and fewer opportunities for participation. Over time, of course, it threatens the viability of facilities that communities depend on.

The irony is that we can spend money improving a clubhouse, upgrading a pitch or expanding facilities only to find that those investments are increasingly vulnerable if resilience is not built in from the start. If public money or event-related investment is helping to support a community sports facility then surely it makes sense to ensure that the facility remains usable for years to come.

Hansard record here: Sporting Events Bill [HL] – Hansard – UK Parliament