Confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Obviously, I echo the sentiments expressed by the two Front-Bench spokespersons about the accident yesterday and the workers who helped to keep people safe.

Another week, and here we are having another transport debate or statement. I am a little unsure of the Labour party’s tactics in trying to shift the Transport Secretary from his position, because it seems to me that the longer he stays in post, the more incompetent he shows the UK Government to be—and they, unlike the franchises, have real competition. He finished by saying there was a lot of political point scoring and that we should all work together, but it would be best if he took on board some of the criticisms. Any criticisms made—or even valid observations—are dismissed out of hand as political point scoring, when they are not, especially given that the franchise system is on its knees.

We have seen time and again that the Secretary of State is blinkered and ideological. He is a hardcore Brexiteer with the mantra, “Everything will be just fine. We just need to get on with it”, as illustrated by his proclamation that there will be no border checks post-Brexit and that lorries, just like on the US-Canada border, will not need to be stopped and checked. I have pointed out several times that that is wrong, but I have never had an admission of wrongdoing from the Secretary of State, and that is part of the problem.

The Secretary of State’s ideological zeal is at its most visible when it comes to the railways—private sector equals good, nationalisation or public ownership equals bad and inefficient—yet, under the current set-up, state-owned railway companies from all over the world run franchises in the UK. The UK franchise system, based on the premise that public ownership is bad, is subsidising railways across the world. Chiltern Railways, CrossCountry, Northern, and Wales and Borders are run by Arriva, which is owned by Deutsche Bahn. Essex Thameside is run by Trenitalia UK, which is owned by the Italian state railway. Greater Anglia and ScotRail are run by Abellio, which is owned by NedRailways, and Abellio is also involved with the West Midlands franchise, along with the East Japan Railway Company. Southeastern, Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern are run by Govia, which includes Keolis, which is owned by the French state rail operator, SNCF. Keolis is also involved in TransPennine Express and will be part of the re-let Welsh franchise later this year.

Italian, French, German, Dutch, Hong Kong and Japanese state rail companies are running franchises in the UK. When I weigh this up, I start to wonder whether the UK franchising system should be classed as foreign aid—because that is what it seems like. Money is flowing out of the UK to these other countries. It illustrates perfectly the pig-headed attitude of the Secretary of State and Tory Back Benchers.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many British firms operate railways in other countries? For example, National Express has just won a contract to run some railways in Germany.

[Alan Brown]

That misses the point. The German state railway company can bid for its own work in Germany. The whole point is that the UK Government refuse point blank to allow UK companies to bid for the franchises.

As I have said time and again, when it comes to the merits of privatisation and franchising, the Transport Secretary wrongly connects cause and effect. He has always played up the increase in investment in the railways since privatisation, along with the subsequent increase in passenger numbers, as if all that had happened magically just because of the sell-off and break-up of British Rail.

We know that British Rail had been struggling and had poor rolling stock, and that much of it was outdated, but that was because of the constraints imposed on British Rail by the UK Government, who did not allow any borrowing or investment. Once the Major Government had sold it off, the franchising allowed private borrowing to be levered in—borrowing that could be recovered only through fares or a Government subsidy. The fact that the current Secretary still does not acknowledge that shows a lack of understanding or an ideological blind spot. The fact is that the original sell-off was the private finance initiative on tracks, and that remains the case to this day.

Another myth, which we have already heard today, is that somehow the taxpayer pays no money to the franchises. According to the recent library briefing on rail franchises, all but two received Government subsidies in 2016-17, amounting to £2,330 million in that year alone.

A further indication of the failure of the franchise system to which the Secretary of State still adheres is the fact that by 2020, 12 of 16 franchise allocations will be direct awards. Where are the innovation and competition when three quarters of the franchises are direct awards to the companies themselves?

The Secretary of State’s blinkered attitude also permeates the failed East Coast franchise. He more or less shrugs his shoulders and says “Stuff happens: some franchises fail.” The reality is that private investors and companies either make money or they walk away. It has been argued there has not been a £2 billion bail-out of Virgin Trains East Coast, but the fact is that VTEC has walked away with a £2 billion IOU to the Government in its back pocket. It has not had to pay the money back, so if the Government do not want to call that a bail-out, it must be called a write-off. The Government have not tried to chase up the money, and it has not reached the stage of being a bad debt. The Government have simply let VTEC off straight away. I only wish that the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would do the same when things go wrong for my constituents. Those bodies are relentless, so why should VTEC walk away owing £2 billion?

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree with me that franchisees that walk away from a franchise should be banned from bidding for a significant period?

[Alan Brown]

Yes, I do. The Secretary of State says that there was a parent company guarantee of £165 million for VTEC, which is a lot of money, but if the parent company is picking up other money in franchises, including the direct award of the west coast main line, it is not actually losing that money. It should be penalised properly, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it should not be able to bid for other franchises. Its ability to bid for the east coast main line partnership has still not been ruled out.

The Secretary of State also justifies the predicament of the parent company by saying that it “got its sums wrong.” I remind him again that it is his Department that got its sums wrong when it carried out its due diligence and assessment. The Government are lucky that one of the other franchise bidders is not seeking redress from them, because they clearly got it wrong, and got the whole process wrong.

[Huw Merriman]

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that private rail operators in Britain are paying money into the Exchequer, whereas in France, 20% of the running costs come from the Government? When it comes to sums, which other areas of public spending would he have cut in order to pay for the things that he is talking about?

[Alan Brown]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to the point that I made about the subsidy that is paid to the rail franchise companies. It is a circular process, which makes it more complicated and more expensive, because of the number of cost consultants involved, taking money from one direction and paying money in another direction, and then blaming Network Rail. All that money can then circulate, and there are still net subsidies for those companies, although they pay track rental fees.

As I have said before, Richard Branson came out fighting. He blamed Network Rail for the overruns, but we have heard that Network Rail was not really at fault. The Secretary of State should be more robust in attacking VTEC. Letting it walk away owing that money undermines his position.

In previous incarnations, the east coast main line service has proved that public ownership can work. When it was last in public ownership, it paid the track rental fees and made a nominal profit, which went straight to the taxpayer. That model can work, and it should be used again in future. The Secretary of State ought to consider that.

Also on this Transport Secretary’s watch has been the Southern rail shambles. He did not do enough to step in. When I highlighted some of Southern’s failings on another occasion, he intervened and said that he was not the Transport Secretary who had been responsible for the allocation of the franchise. That completely missed the point: he was simply saying, “It’s not my fault, guv.”

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Brown]

I will, briefly, but I am pressed for time.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the situation on Southern and GTR was so long-running that the Secretary of State should step in now, and that there should be not a review but an immediate revocation of the franchise, as happened with Connect Southeastern under Labour?

[Alan Brown]

I agree that the failed franchise should be addressed and immediate action taken. The Secretary of State has been too slow, and the ongoing review will take too long and kick everything into the long grass.

When Abellio took over the ScotRail franchise, there were teething problems, which made national news. Opposition politicians in Scotland were not slow in calling for the head of Humza Yusaf, the Transport Minister. However, he stepped in and agreed a detailed action plan with the Abellio-ScotRail franchise, which really turned things around. It was direct intervention that made the difference.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

More than 50% of the delays in Scotland are down to Network Rail, which the Secretary of State stubbornly refuses to devolve to Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that if he did that, it could make a big difference to rail travel in Scotland immediately?

[Alan Brown]

It could make a big difference to rail travel in Scotland, and it could also make a Treasury saving. The fact that the Secretary of State continues to refuse to do that defies logic.

We have also seen the railcard fiasco. The railcard has been put on hold because, apparently, no one wants to pay for it. Who would have thought the industry would not want to pay for a gimmick that the Government introduced in the Budget, when they said, “The industry will pay for it”? That is just another failure on the part of this Government.

GTR’s chief executive, Charles Horton, has resigned, Mark Carne and Network Rail’s chief financial officer are forgoing their bonuses, and we have seen plenty of other Government resignations. It is time for the Transport Secretary to consider his position, rather than awaiting the outcome of a review.

Commenting on delays in the Waverley station refurbishment, Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, said:

“This cannot continue for much longer, and it’s not good enough for ministers to just shrug their shoulders and say they’re doing their best.”

Given the delays were the fault of Network Rail, will the Secretary of State do what the Scottish Tory leader thinks is correct, and what we think he should do?

Heathrow

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. We have seen many brilliant examples of crowbarring local and national issues into debates, and I salute her ingenuity in so doing. She rightly makes the point that this proposition has been left unexecuted for far too long, although it has greatly improved as a result. It will bring an almost £75 billion boost to the UK economy, provide better connections to growing world markets and allow better support for regional airports and the regions of the country. She is right that we need to press ahead.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I am rather naive. When the Secretary of State for Transport came to the Dispatch Box to present the decision on Heathrow expansion, I thought he was moving on from the rail shambles and on to firm ground—a subject he had a firm grip on—but clearly that is not quite the case. We are hearing mixed messages about liabilities and a rather flippant, “We don’t need to worry. It is a normal commercial recovery mechanism that Heathrow has put in.” The Government have to be clear about this if they are to carry the vote of the House and take this forward, and time is limited.

The Secretary of State said that the Government had acted on 24 out of the 25 recommendations of the Transport Committee’s report on the NPS, but that claim seems to be unravelling as we go through the Government’s response. Again, it seems the Government are not on top of this. There has been much debate about the cost of surface access and who pays for that. The Government are going to have to be very clear, because they keep saying there are no liabilities there and it will all be private-funded. They need to start to understand the mechanisms for the payment of surface access upgrades; will that be a private finance initiative through fare recovery? What will it be, and what are the associated contingent liabilities? Quite often, the Government end up giving infrastructure guarantees, so will they be in place for surface access upgrades?

In terms of the 15% of new slots—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is way over time. If he has a single sentence to add, I am happy to hear it, but after that we do need to proceed.

[Alan Brown]

I will need to understand the protection of the 15% of new slots for the new domestic routes before the vote takes place; that is important.

[Jesse Norman]

The latter point is so far outside the scope of this UQ that I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I address it in the Committee session this afternoon.

On the issues the hon. Gentleman raises that are germane to the question, let me start by thanking the Scottish National party for its support for this project, which it rightly concludes will be of great value to Scotland—and that is agreed across all parties. There are no mixed messages here and there is nothing fluffy about the legal position on which the Government have—as it appears, uniquely—taken advice. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the statement of principles was published in 2016 and has been available for almost two years, so if there is fluffiness it is not on the Government side of this House.

We have taken very seriously the 24 out of 25 Select Committee recommendations that the hon. Gentleman raised. We are grateful to the Select Committee for its detailed and painstaking work and have acted on many of its recommendations; we have left one to be a point of further discussion, and dispute potentially, but we have been overwhelmingly positive in many ways towards the Select Committee response. That should be reflected on the record, and we are grateful for the support it has given to this project.

Airports National Policy Statement

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I rise to speak with a little trepidation—I have never heard so many MPs call for what the SNP will say; it was absolutely curious. It is good that for once they will all be listening, rather than staring at their iPads.

[Andy Slaughter]

While we have been here, a constituent sent me a letter that had been sent to The Scotsman, the end of which reads:

“Scottish airports not pursuing a more independent approach will fail to break a dependency that could be vital for an independent nation. Surely a better approach to accepting Heathrow offering breadcrumbs is to build vibrant international capacity…By using modern point-to-point aircraft this will create air passenger-friendly economic activity independently of the mores of the south-east and the outdated hub-and-spoke.”

Does he not regard that as a call to arms?

[Alan Brown]

I agree with the call for independence, and it was great to hear the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) giving advice on what an independent Scotland would look like. However, even if Scotland becomes independent, we can still have the same connectivity, as that is separate from being independent. We want to be an independent country with connectivity all over the world. However, the truth of the matter is that, with regard to the expansion of Scottish airports, many of the chief executives of Scottish airports I have spoken to want Heathrow expansion. Truth be told, they would accept Gatwick expansion, but they all say that they need that extra connectivity into the main London airport. That is the reality; it is not a factor of independence. In an ideal world we would have a major international hub in Scotland, but we do not have the critical mass.

People either support Heathrow expansion, support it with a “but”, or outright oppose it. Those who oppose it are more likely to be here on a Thursday afternoon to make their contributions heard. It has been a really good debate. Every Member, no matter their viewpoint, has complimented the excellent work done by the Transport Committee. It has published an excellent report, and I must pay tribute to the Committee’s Chair for the thorough way in which she presented it.

I am pleased that a briefing was provided for MPs. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but the briefing notes were excellent, giving a concise summary of some of the issues that still need to be teased out. It will be good to hear the Minister’s response. Like others, I pay tribute to the work the Clerks have done. Although I have not been involved, I know how the Clerks work, and it is great to see the report and information presented concisely.

The Committee Chair highlighted fairly that this issue is not just about connectivity; it is also about the individual people who will be affected. I am conscious that I am a Scottish MP who will be asked to vote on a decision that affects people who are not my constituents. I accept that and understand that some local people affected might be a wee bit angry about that, but unfortunately the reality of a major infrastructure project is that some people will be affected. We must look at the pros and cons, and these people should be adequately compensated and looked after. That is the flipside of a dynamic—other MPs are now advising me as a SNP and Scottish MP on what view I should take—so it works both ways.

The Committee Chair also importantly outlined the risks of inaction—decisions not taken and no further expansion of a hub airport—in terms of the potential loss of business to other European airports. She and others highlighted the risk of the project not being delivered in Heathrow’s timescale by 2026. A pertinent point is that it could be built by 2026 and operating at full capacity by 2028—it seems counter-intuitive that it could be at full capacity just two years after its projected opening. That suggests that it is not a forward-thinking business plan. It would be good to hear comments on that.

The Chair and other Members highlighted surface access issues, particularly road traffic, the required air quality updates and the fact that there are openings for legal challenges. Again, the Minister’s response must cover that in detail. The Chair concluded by saying that the Committee’s support is conditional. It clearly has yet to meet to discuss further the Government’s response, but it is a fair comment that the report must surely have helped other Members decide how they will vote when the time comes to make this big decision. I again pay tribute to the Committee for the work it has done.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on his 35 years in Parliament. He highlighted the success of and threats from competing airports. He touched on the personal aspect of understanding how Heathrow can affect constituents but still laid out his support for the plan. I commend him for shoehorning in a connection to Manston airport and for suggesting that it could be used as a stopgap for freight transport.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who has been campaigning against Heathrow expansion for a long time. I respect her view. She correctly highlighted flightpath concerns, and I agree that there should be more transparency on flightpaths so that people fully understand the implications. She also highlighted issues about other traffic movements.

The right hon. Member for Putney has been dogged on this issue. I commend her for securing an urgent question today. She highlighted what she sees as the financial considerations and risk to the Government in having to underwrite the project. We need further clarity. I am well aware that the Government say that there is no financial risk involved because it will be fully by the private sector, but we need absolute clarity on that. She touched on massive concerns for Scotland relating to infrastructure and growth. I welcome her conversion to Scottish independence. I appreciate what she said about Transport for London’s commitments to surface expansion potentially drawing away further investment, but the reality is that Transport for London has a different borrowing model, so that will not directly affect infrastructure spend in Scotland. That is a bit of a red herring, to be honest.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), having analysed this and being a member of the Transport Committee, was another “Yes, but.” He highlighted the real importance of western rail access not just for Heathrow, but for wider western connectivity. It seems that that project should have gone ahead sooner rather than later.

The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) came at this from the national interest approach. He made the argument that it is not in the national interests, and as a Tory he argued about the financial implications. Interestingly—this is almost a conspiracy theory—he believes that Heathrow is not going to develop and that this is just a mechanism to control competition. Depending on what happens with the vote and how we go forward, we will see whether those chickens come home to roost, but I suggest that Heathrow seems to have spent a lot of money and effort so far, and to do so for a scheme it does not intend to progress with would be quite surprising.

[Adam Afriyie]

In terms of the financial interest and the money that has been spent so far, I would say that it would be a pretty wise investment to spend several tens of millions if it looked as though Heathrow could increase its landing fees, increase its take and stop the competition growing for a period of 10, 20 or 30 years. That is a wise investment on its part.

[Alan Brown]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that there is a financial benefit to spending the money if it eliminates the competition, but clearly if Heathrow stymies routes and development going forward, it opens up some of the other opportunities that at the moment we are saying do not exist. I am not sure it would be in its long-term interests to be able to do that.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said that this debate has cheered him up. I presume that is because quite a few people spoke in opposition—I am not sure that I will cheer him up as I continue. He highlighted concerns about flightpath and cost. As a flippant aside, I must commend him for the coherent speech he has made from the scribbles he makes on his paper. I do not know how he manages to do that, and I commend him for it.

[Andy Slaughter]

It is not me; it is Hansard.

[Alan Brown]

We all have to thank Hansard for making us seem more coherent.

The hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) gave us a Yorkshire perspective. To cheer him up, one of my grandparents was from Yorkshire, so I am one quarter Yorkshire—maybe I am an honorary Yorkshireman. He suggested that there should be a three-line Labour Whip against this. It will be interesting to see what the shadow Minister says about that recommendation; maybe he can give us some guidance in his summing-up speech. The hon. Member for Keighley was another one giving advice to the other SNP MPs and me on what is in Scotland’s interests. I take his point about the possible risk to direct, point-to-point, long-haul connections and some of the threats predicted for regional airports. I also have concerns and would want some protection. I want to hear what the Minister says about that.

The final Back-Bench speech was from the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who again highlighted the environmental and social impacts and how traffic can affect air quality. I was trying to follow her logic. It seems that she wants the Tories to U-turn on their decision not to overturn the previous Labour decision. That seems to highlight how long this has been kicking around, how much prevarication there has been and, if nothing else, why we need to get to a decision.

[Dr Huq]

Following the logic that people can change their minds, would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this Government should also now change their mind on Brexit—something else that sounded good but is now unravelling?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I think we should leave Brexit for another day, because I am running out of time as it is.

I will give a few thoughts on some of the Transport Committee’s key recommendations and the Government’s response—I have had the chance to skim through it quickly, since time has been limited. Recommendation 1 asks for the national policy statement to be redrafted to meet the Committee’s recommendations and the concerns it has highlighted. The Government response suggests that they have done that, but looking at the Government responses on an individual basis, it seems that they have paid platitudes to the recommendations rather than wholeheartedly taking them on board and changing the national policy statement. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that, since it will clearly be critical in bringing other hon. Members on board with the decision they want.

Recommendations 3 to 6 are about the Secretary of State granting development consent only on condition of satisfaction on air quality, health and safety, and environmental grounds. What will be the transparency and accountability aspects of these considerations if the vote is in favour? Why do the Government not just publish the air quality monetisation modelling? Stating that new, greener planes will help with air quality and environmental concerns is a bit of a cop-out as well. We need a wee bit more clarity on that.

Recommendations 7 to 9 relate to the surface access upgrades. Other hon. Members have raised concerns about those and we need transparency on them. We need to be sure that the upgrades will be privately financed and not underwritten by the Government, and that there are clear business models there that can be developed. There seems to be some division over whether some of the proposed rail schemes will tackle the expansion of Heathrow or are based only on existing usage. The Government need to be clear on that, and we need clear information on the M25.

Recommendation 10, from my perspective, is critical for MPs who represent regional airports. How will the 15% of slots for domestic routes be protected? The Secretary of State suggested in his statement the other day that a legal mechanism could be developed, possibly in a public service obligation, but how will that protect the number of airports that have been promised opportunities? How will the PSO work? Other hon. Members have raised the point that it might not be applicable to some of the airports that are looking for those connections. We need absolute clarity on that before the vote. If my SNP colleagues and I are voting on the basis of increased connectivity to the Heathrow international hub, we need assurances that those slots will remain in place and that Scotland will get the connectivity it has been promised.

Recommendation 11 is about affordability and deliverability. The Government response states that HAL

“appears in principle to be able to privately finance”

this, and paragraph 1.70 states:

“The Government will continue to monitor the financeability and affordability of the scheme as the design develops and as the economic regulatory framework for expansion matures.”

I ask the Minister to explain that to me, as a layman.

On recommendation 12, which relates to charges, the Government response states:

“The Government agrees that expansion cannot come at any cost.”

Again, what are the Government going to do to ensure that future costs do not rise exponentially, and how will they control and monitor that? I accept that there is a role for the CAA, but that still potentially leaves the door open for increased charges justified by x, y or z, where the CAA says that is completely justified.

Recommendation 25 is all about the policy consultation and ways to maximise other runway capacity across the UK. That is crucial, and the Government seem to have ignored it, apart from saying that they recognise the recommendation. I want to know what the Government will do about UK-wide airport strategy and maximising the other airports across the UK.

It is quite clear that to date the SNP, including myself, has spoken in support of Heathrow expansion. For the benefit of hon. Members, the reason is that airports in Scotland have told us that they want that connectivity. The airlines support it. There is a possibility of 16,000 jobs. The chambers of commerce in Scotland support it, as do all Scottish airports except Edinburgh, which has the Gatwick connection. That is the case at the moment. It is a “Yes, but” position, and the Government must take due cognisance of those concerns and the work of the Transport Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

Our expectation is that it will be up to 15%, but we wait to see how far that 15% can be fully utilised. We have made it perfectly clear that, although this is not a matter for Government as such, we expect to see many regional airports come forward with plans, as many have already said they would. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) has already given evidence of the support of Scottish airports.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State said in his statement on Tuesday that the Government will find a legal mechanism for the protection of slots. How is that going to happen? That seemed to be a rather more vague commitment.

[Jesse Norman]

That is right. We have taken legal advice on it. We believe that public service obligations are a mechanism that can be used to give legal support for that position. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take a degree of comfort from that.

I want to turn to some of the many points that were raised. I have only about two and a half minutes remaining, so I will be as quick as I can. I apologise if I miss some, and colleagues are welcome to write to me with these concerns. One suggestion made was that the scheme fails to monetise all the costs. The advice I have had is that we have monetised the air quality impact, which was identified as an omission by the Transport Committee and included in the updated appraisal report. On the question of whether there is a potentially costly risk from a delay in hitting full capacity, our judgment is that this is not specifically geared towards the delivery of a scheme in 2026 exactly, which is immediately being filled up thereafter. Sensitivity testing on this suggests that there might be limited impacts, even if there were some form of delay, which we do not expect.

Let me go through these other points, many of which I have already touched on. As I mentioned, we agree that the conversation on mitigation must focus on the communities most affected. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who highlighted the importance of freight. He also made a powerful case, as many regional airports have done, for wider connectivity within the UK itself. I would not be surprised if I saw a bid coming forward from Manston, in a different incarnation from its current posture. I thank him for that.

We have touched on the question of bans versus mitigation. There is a suggestion that flight paths are somehow locked in place with no ability to vary. To be clear, as we move to a world of digital airspace, the capacity to vary flight paths greatly increases. That will take a number of years and that is why it has to be developed in context with the decision about the flight paths and therefore the noise implications of that, but it is important to bear that in mind.

I am grateful to the Committee. I appreciate that, in addition to the due documents that were laid before Parliament, a whole host of other materials have been subsequently published. I am grateful to hon. Members for looking at that. If they have further comments on that material, we would be happy to hear them.

Airports National Policy Statement

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My right hon. Friend has made a crucial point. That is, obviously, a matter of great importance to the airlines. They do not want fares to rise, and nor do we. This should be a development that leads to more choice for passengers, as well as more competition and, as a result, lower fares. One of the benefits of expanding the network will be for the United Kingdom, because we need more operators within the UK, and we may be able to achieve better competition on routes into Heathrow.

I have statutory powers, which I have already used on two occasions, to enable the Civil Aviation Authority to monitor the costs of the project to ensure that they are driven down. I renewed those powers recently, and I will continue to do so whenever necessary.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of his statement.

This has been another polarising issue, and aspects of the UK Government’s approach in the past and the delaying tactics have not helped matters. However, I welcome the progress that is being made, and the fact that a vote appears to be imminent. The option of Heathrow expansion was recommended by the Airports Commission. It was also backed by the Transport Committee, as we have heard, and I pay tribute to its work in scrutinising the national policy statement.

To be fair, Heathrow has engaged fully with the Scottish Government, and has signed a memorandum of understanding in relation to commitments to Scotland. It refers to a construction logistics hub, and, for selfish constituency reasons, I should like that to be based at Prestwick airport. There is also a commitment to a £10 million route development fund, and a commitment to promoting Scotland in the future. I must be honest: for me, supporting expansion at Heathrow from a Scottish perspective was initially counter-intuitive. However, all but one of the Scottish airport operators support it. So do the various Scottish chambers of commerce, because they recognise the business benefits that it can bring to Scotland, including up to 16,000 new jobs. That helped to sway me, and the Scottish Government have reiterated their support.

Let me ask the Secretary of State some questions about his statement. He spoke of benefits for nations and regions, and an expected

“15% of slots on a new runway to facilitate domestic connections across the UK”.

However, he has still not explained how he will ensure that that happens. Will conditions be imposed, and will he consider Scotland’s needs? How will he ensure that what is proposed for Heathrow will increase passenger numbers at Scottish airports? He said that he had recommissioned the CAA to work with the industry to keep charges close to their current levels, but he did not make it clear how there could be certainty that future charges would be kept under control. What will happen if Heathrow cannot commit itself to the longer period that the Secretary of State has just thrown into the mix, and what will he do to ensure that there is more transparency on new flight paths? Finally, given the UK Government’s failures to date and their defeats in court in relation to air quality, what will be done to ensure that air quality impact assessments are robust and that the correct control measures are introduced?

[Chris Grayling]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, the Scottish Government and the Scottish National party for their support. I think it important for us to ensure that Scotland is well served by the expansion of Heathrow. I think the hon. Gentleman understands, given the support that has come from the Scottish regional airports and the Scottish business community, that by providing more strategic routes for the United Kingdom from Heathrow we will provide links to important new developing markets around the world.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the protection of slots. We are considering what is the best mechanism. It seems that the public service obligation mechanism may be the best, but I want the most robust legal mechanism to operate by the time we reach the development consent order process, in order to protect the allocation of slots to regional connections in the United Kingdom. I do not want, and will not accept, circumstances in which slots somehow disappear and are allocated to a long-haul route rather than a UK route. This must be a project that benefits the whole United Kingdom. As for passenger numbers, our forecasts show that virtually all regional airports will continue to grow, and I expect the hon. Gentleman to see growth at Scottish airports as well as on routes to and from Heathrow.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the setting of charges. The CAA sets the charges, and it has absolute regulatory power to set them at the level that is appropriate for the airport. It has the teeth to deliver that at the moment. He asked about the respite issue. Let me make it clear that the night flight ban is an absolute requirement. We would reconsider that only if both the airport and the local communities agreed that something different should be done. The local communities would have to come back to us, with representatives of the airport, and say, “We would like to do something slightly different.” From the Government’s point of view, the ban is a non-negotiable element.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s final question, given that there are opponents of the scheme, I think it highly likely that it will be challenged in the courts. We have done exhaustive work, and there is a huge amount of material for the House to consider. We are following a statutory process, and only if there is a supportive vote in the House of Commons can the project go ahead. I hope that that is enough to set the project on the right path.

Rail Timetabling

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend; I think that the railways are going to have to change significantly as a result of what has happened. However, I say to those who are saying that we should sack the franchisees that simply sacking the people who are working today will not solve the problem, because I do not have some other group of people down the corridor who are able to take over. We have to make sure that everyone has all the necessary support from across the industry to deliver solutions for passengers and get back to stability as quickly as possible. I absolutely accept what my hon. Friend says.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Another week, another rail shambles. When will the Secretary of State admit that the rail franchise system is broken and do something to fix it properly? It was really disappointing to hear that travellers who were forced to get rail replacement buses at short notice were sometimes turned away because the buses were full or simply did not turn up. That is even more ironic considering that Arriva also operates overlapping bus groups. That just highlights the farce that is going on at the moment.

We know that late-running Network Rail projects reduced the time available for train operators to plan the new schedules, but what assessment has the Secretary of State made of his Department’s culpability in this, with regard to Network Rail? Despite assurances that all was well, it is now clear that there was no possibility of the timetables being capable of being operated in full from day one. Why did no one in the train operating companies, Network Rail or the Department for Transport ask for a postponement of the new timetable roll-out?

The Secretary of State has said that he will take the strongest enforcement action against GTR if it has broken its franchise agreement. Will that action be stronger than that taken against Virgin Trains East Coast, which has been allowed to walk away owing the Department for Transport billions of pounds?

What is the Secretary of State’s exact timeframe for resolving these timetable issues? He has mentioned putting in additional resources. What additional resources will be put in from his Department? What is he doing to ensure that the driver shortage is not met by poaching drivers from other franchises, which could have an impact on services elsewhere? On the question of compensation, what will he do to ensure that the rail industry does not recover the costs of compensation from other fare-paying passengers?

The Secretary of State continually highlights Network Rail failings, but when will he accept that he has responsibility and culpability for Network Rail and fall on his own sword? An apology is not good enough.

[Chris Grayling]

As I have said, the key issue now is to sort out the problems. The hon. Gentleman asked about failings in my Department and elsewhere. I have asked Stephen Glaister to look at everything that has happened and to report back publicly so that we can know exactly what has gone wrong and particularly so that we can ensure that it cannot happen again. The hon. Gentleman asked about resources. My Department is deploying extra people on this, as is the industry. For example, GTR has borrowed drivers from freight operators to try to deal with some of the shortages on its rosters. On the question of compensation costs, my view is that they should be paid by the people who are responsible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear: the situation with Northern has been unacceptable. As I said yesterday, I will this morning chair a conference call with the Northern leaders. This is the most devolved franchise. It is a partnership between Northern leaders and the Department for Transport, but it is not solely led by the Department. None the less, it is no less important to me that we get this situation resolved. I am very clear that this problem has arisen for two prime reasons: the problems with electrification Network Rail is carrying out on the line through Bolton and the failure of Network Rail to deliver a finalised timetable in time. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the need to strip the franchise and renationalise, he is shooting at the wrong target. This is a Network Rail failure and it must not happen again.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

We know that since rail privatisation the Secretary of State thinks magic money appears from nowhere with no risk to the taxpayer, but that is not the case. When it comes to infrastructure, the UK relied on £35 billion of loans from the European Investment Bank between 2011 and 2015. Where will that money come from for rail infrastructure post Brexit?

[Chris Grayling]

We are a substantial net contributor to the European Union, so the money given to the UK from different European funds actually originates in the UK. We will be able to spend our money in the way we see fit. We are of course spending record amounts of money on rail infrastructure to develop what needs to be a better, expanded and more resilient rail network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that this country is committed to frictionless borders. Teesport is doing a great job; I saw some of the firms that operate at the port only recently. That is one reason why I have announced the study into the potential reopening of the Skipton to Colne railway line, because one thing we lack for ports such as Teesport and, indeed, Liverpool, is better freight connections across the Pennines. Every time I talk to the port operators, that is top of their list.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

One of the Brexit myths is taking control of borders, yet the Secretary of State continues to say that there will be no further checks on transport at ports. Is that just because he does not have a clue about how the Government can put in place a system that allows checks to be made but does not cause carnage on the roads round about the ports?

[Chris Grayling]

No, I am afraid it is because the hon. Gentleman does not understand how ports operate today. It is not necessary to stop every lorry at a border—indeed, every lorry is not stopped at the border—to have a free flow of trade. Countries inside the European Union and countries that have no connection with the European Union manage to operate a free flow through ports and across borders, and that is what we will do after we leave.

Transport Secretary: East Coast Franchise

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Transport Secretary. He made a speech that will certainly appeal to his Back Benchers, but I would not say it was a forensic demolition of the argument for public ownership of the east coast main line. When the Transport Secretary throws out phrases like “Labour just hate the private sector” and “they would turn our economy into a Venezuelan economy” that seems like smoke and mirrors to me, rather than forensic analysis.

This censure motion relates directly to the handling of the east coast main line franchise. I am happy to support it on that basis, but there has been a further catalogue of errors on the Transport Secretary’s watch. I want to touch on some of that as well, as it builds up to where are today.

It is clear from the opening speeches that there are opposing views across the Chamber on the merits of privatisation and franchising, but one thing that I am confident about is that, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) touched on, the Transport Secretary wrongly connects cause and effect when it comes to privatisation of the railways. He continually plays up the increased investment in the railways since privatisation and the subsequent increase in passenger numbers as if it all just magically happened when British Rail was broken up and sold off. It can be argued that British Rail was struggling—it did have some poor rolling stock and it was outdated—but that is only half the picture because the Government would not allow British Rail to borrow to invest in the railways. The Transport Secretary says British Rail did not have access to capital, but that was because the Government would not allow it to access capital.

There was another restriction on the railways at the time. Substantial investment was needed following the 1988 Clapham rail crash, and further rolling stock upgrades and the channel tunnel were bleeding money elsewhere that British Rail was not allowed to access. Once John Major’s Government sold off British Rail, they allowed private borrowing, so it is correct that additional money was levered in, but that money was levered in on the basis that it could be recovered only through fares or through Government subsidy. If the Transport Secretary cannot acknowledge that money can be borrowed only because it is underpinned by the taxpayer, either it shows a real lack of understanding of where the money comes from, or it shows his ideological blind spot.

That attitude permeates all the way through the failed east coast franchise. The Transport Secretary has previously more or less shrugged his shoulders in the Chamber and said, “Well, you know what? Stuff happens. Some franchises fail, and that is the way the private world operates. Some fail and we move on, but do you know what? Others will come along and they will be successful, so why worry?”

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the flaws in the east coast franchise, and one of the reasons it failed, is that it was so badly set up in the first place, with the backloading of payments? Does he agree that perhaps we should take this opportunity, as we go into a different arrangement, to look at how we set up franchises to make sure we do not doom them to failure?

[Alan Brown]

I agree with the hon. Lady. I will address a couple of those points because I agree wholeheartedly with what she says about the tender process and the backloading.

The reality is that private investors and companies either make money out of a franchise or they seem to be allowed to walk away. The Transport Secretary stated at the Dispatch Box that what is now happening is not a bail-out of VTEC. But if VTEC owes £2 billion in track premiums and is allowed to walk away without paying anything, that must by definition be a £2 billion bail-out. That is so simple and it cannot be argued against.

[Huw Merriman]

Surely the definition of a bail-out is when the Government actually have to pay money to the company, which of course they are not doing. If anything, the criticism of the Government is that they have ripped off the private sector and got more money from it than it could deliver.

[Alan Brown]

Yes, there we see the ideological blind spot yet again. If somebody owes me £2 billion, I would be writing off £2 billion of debt if I said, “Forget about it. It’s okay.” Let us say it is technically not a bail-out, but the Government are writing off £2 billion of debt that that company owes the taxpayer. The company is walking away and getting rid of a £2 billion liability, and I do not understand why Conservative Members are trying to argue different.

The Transport Secretary has previously justified the predicament by saying the franchisee got its sums wrong. That should not be an excuse, but, as I have repeatedly said, and the shadow Minister also touched on this, it means the Department for Transport also got its sums wrong when it thought the tender was suitable for award. It is not just the franchisee that got its sums wrong; the Department for Transport got its sums wrong, too.

The Government failed in their due diligence. What about the supposed parent company guarantees? Those guarantees clearly have not been worth much to the taxpayer. We do not know what the runner-up bids looked like, but do those runners up have a case against the Government, given they clearly failed in their due diligence by awarding this franchise, from which VTEC gets to walk away?

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, we know VTEC backloaded the track premiums. If another consortium’s bid did not backload the track premiums, the taxpayer might already have made more money, but we do not know whether there was such a bid because it is all clouded in commercial confidentiality. It also shows, yet again, that no lessons were learned from the failed 2012 west coast franchise. The Transport Secretary had a duty to ensure that lessons were learned and properly applied in awarding the east coast franchise, and it is clear that not enough analysis was undertaken.

When the story broke, although VTEC got the sums wrong, Richard Branson blamed some of the reduced numbers on Network Rail. Given the Transport Secretary also has responsibility for Network Rail, what is the truth in that statement? If it is true that Network Rail was the problem, VTEC should be compensated because that is the way the franchise model works. If it is not true, why has the Transport Secretary not come out fighting to disprove Richard Branson’s comments, instead of casually defending VTEC at the Dispatch Box? It is more smoke and mirrors from VTEC.

At the Transport Committee, the chief executive of Stagecoach used excuses such as that the Scottish referendum and Brexit hit the numbers. Considering that our referendum was in 2014, before the franchise was awarded, that is clearly patent nonsense.

Despite all that, the Transport Secretary’s new wheeze to prevent a blame game between the track owner and the franchise holder is a combined partnership model. That might improve things, but at this stage we do not know what the set-up will look like or how it will interact with other services outwith the franchise. Given the repeated Back-Bench Tory support for open access on the line, there will clearly be further complications for such a partnership to address. It is absolutely guaranteed that there will be further issues down the line.

[Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)]

The Public Accounts Committee found last month that the passenger growth forecast by Virgin and Stagecoach was wildly wrong. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, does that prove the rail franchising model is broken?

[Alan Brown]

It certainly proves the current model is broken. If a franchisee gets its figures wildly wrong, it goes back to the due diligence by the Department for Transport, which clearly accepted the wildly wrong and inflated figures. Action is needed to remedy that.

Even if we accept the Government’s partnership model, the Transport Secretary has made it clear he believes that the private sector always operates better than the public sector. Surely then, at the very least, he should allow the public sector to bid for franchises: if he is that confident the private sector will win, he does not have to worry about the public sector bidding. Let the public sector bid and let us see which is the most competitive.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Is it not the case that what we are seeing here is not a free market situation at all? In a free market situation, a failing franchisee would lose money, too. The current situation is tantamount to going into a casino, putting on a bet, losing and being given back the stake. Surely risk should be shared with the private sector in future arrangements so it takes a hit, as well as the taxpayer.

[Alan Brown]

I completely agree. Rail franchise holders have been able to walk away. As has been said, the profits are privatised and the losses are underpinned by the taxpayer. That is not a proper free market model because there is absolutely no punitive action against franchise holders when they fail.

[Huw Merriman]

If that were the case, why did the share prices of the companies involved collapse?

[Alan Brown]

Funnily enough, Stagecoach’s share price increased when the Transport Secretary gave a statement from the Dispatch Box in February. Share prices go up and down, which is to do with the overall performance of these companies, and they are very big companies. The whole point of these big companies bidding and providing parent company guarantees is that it is supposed to offset the risk, rather than leaving the risk to the taxpayer.

On the question of state-owned companies or public sector organisations running franchises, the Transport Secretary’s logic completely falls apart when we consider that four foreign state-owned rail companies already operate franchises in the UK. Those companies are making a profit here for reinvestment in their domestic set-up, which is proof that state-run railways can work efficiently.

The previous east coast main line services are further proof that public ownership can work. When the previous franchise failed and was taken into public sector operation, it returned £1 billion in track fees to the Treasury and turned an operating profit of £42 million. So, as has been asked before, why move away from that successful model to one where VTEC can come in with inflated sums and then get to walk away? It is clearly not right.

The southern rail franchise shambles also happened on the Transport Secretary’s watch. The main conclusion of the NAO’s report is that it could not be demonstrated that the franchise has delivered value for money. At the time, the operator blamed Network Rail and the unions, and the Government blamed the unions, completely ignoring the Transport Secretary’s role in refusing to engage with them. The fact is that 60% of the cancellations were due to Govia Thameslink Railway and only 40% were caused by Network Rail. The UK Government set up the model supposedly to deal with the complex infrastructure upgrades, but the Government took all the revenue risks, so the strikes actually cost the taxpayer, because the loss of revenue is underwritten. The Government also awarded the franchise based on an even higher roll-out of driver-only operation, which is what caused some of the disputes.

[Ian Mearns]

This is not just a problem with southern. Southern is a failing franchise, but northern seems to be on the verge of failing, too, with complaints from passengers across the north of England about services regularly not being provided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I agree, and I think that the Government are now looking at northern because it is yet another failing franchise—another sign that the current system is just not fit for purpose.

I go back to the problems with the southern franchise. The NAO report makes it clear that the Department for Transport’s responsibility was large, especially for access to the network and timetabling pressures. Such errors led to an additional £60 million being allocated from the Treasury, following a loss in revenue and other costs. Again, all that happened on this Transport Secretary’s watch.

[Chris Grayling]

I do not want to deflect attention in any way, but may I remind the hon. Gentleman that that franchise was not set up while I was Secretary of State?

[Alan Brown]

I am happy to accept that, but all the current problems are happening under the Secretary of State’s watch. He has refused to get involved in trying to resolve the disputes to move things forward. I accept the fact about when it was set up, but he could have been stronger in his leadership and his interventions instead of letting things rumble on.

Another issue that I have with the Secretary of State’s overall competence is his dogmatic refusal to devolve Network Rail to Scotland. The organisation is clearly too big, and it has a bad reputation for delays and overspend, so why would he not want to take the opportunity to devolve it, allowing the Scottish Government to take full responsibility? It has been estimated that a unified management structure could save up to £100 million a year, and that alone should appeal to a Tory Secretary of State, so I just do not understand his dogmatic refusal to engage.

Then there is his lack of engagement with the Scottish Government about the funding for control period 6 in Scotland. The allocation is way less than his regulator recommended for track maintenance and growth in Scotland’s railways. Why is he being so obstinate in refusing to meet the Scottish Government or to consider what might be a fair funding settlement? We also had the recent railcard fiasco. The autumn Budget included the announcement of a discounted railcard for 26 to 30-year-olds, except the Treasury did not put any money into the scheme. In answer to a written question, I was told that the rail industry would pay for it itself, but that was done without discussions with the industry so, lo and behold, the scheme is in chaos. Who would have thought it? Again, that happened under this Secretary of State’s watch.

The Transport Secretary’s slash-and-burn attitude to rail electrification projects and the short-sighted selection of hybrid engines will lead to continued diesel pollution. He has also so far refused to fund or consider meaningful upgrades to the west coast main line north of Crewe. The way that high-speed rail will be implemented means that journeys between Scotland and Crewe will take longer on high-speed trains than they take currently with Virgin Trains, so we need further investment north of Crewe.

I will deviate from rail slightly before I finish. The Transport Secretary’s incompetence is summed up by his proclamations that there will be no border checks post Brexit. The suggestion is that lorries will not be stopped—just like on the US-Canada border—but that just shows that he does not have a grasp of his brief. That is why I am more than happy to support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Just give me two seconds. When we look at the money that was earned, some £1 billion was returned in three years compared with £1 billion in five years under nationalisation.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the problems caused by Network Rail. Will he remind the House who was in charge of Network Rail for the Government?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. Indeed, that is the problem with a nationalised company. Many people have said, “Oh, it’s the Secretary of State’s responsibility in a nationalised company, ” but that is not how it works—it is not how it has ever worked. On the one hand, people are saying that the Secretary of State should take complete control of the railways, and on the other that he should get out. People who are running a nationalised operation do not share the sense of urgency of those in the private sector. There are litanies of delayed or missing projects under Network Rail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I always travel by train when I can, and with respect to colleagues from the north-east of England, I am going to lay claim in this debate to be Virgin Trains East Coast’s best customer. I have made 32 return journeys from Edinburgh to London in the past 12 months. That is the equivalent of circumnavigating the globe in a Virgin train and it gives me quite an insight into the service.

I pay tribute to the staff of that service who have served me over these years—the people who drive the trains, who check the tickets, who serve the drinks, who provide the information—and also the many hundreds of staff who work in the depots, cleaning and engineering these magnificent machines. I think it is a shame, the way in which they have been treated, and that they are constantly being told that their boss and their uniform is changing, rather than being valued for the service that they provide.

We have heard a lot about ideology in this debate. The Government seem convinced that their opponents are motivated only by ideological dogma. Anyone reviewing the text of this debate surely can only conclude that the reverse is the truth—that in fact, it is the Government who are so blinkered by ideological dogma in favour of privatisation that they refuse even to consider the possibility of a contemporary public sector alternative. That seems to me very regrettable, because there are many positive reasons why the public sector alternative should be considered. I just want to name two.

The first reason is that it would allow integration of the management of the service and remove the ridiculous separation between the train and the track that is responsible for many of the problems that we are facing in the operation. What better way to ensure that the track serves the demands of the train service than to place it under the management of the same people who manage the train service? The idea of separating a vehicle from what it is travelling on might make sense with a road network, where there are lots of different avenues to travel, but the train only has one track on which to get from A to B, and the management of those things ought to be integrated. That could happen, in a public sector organisation.

[Alan Brown]

Clearly, I agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. Does this not further reinforce the argument that, in Scotland, Network Rail should be devolved to Scotland, to allow the Scottish Government to have that integration he is talking about?

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed, and I will come to that later.

The second big positive of having a public sector operator is that it will allow for much greater investment—we would not have to have investment that was contingent on franchise payments and on levels of use; we could just take a serious decision, as a grown-up country, and say, “We need to rapidly and significantly invest more in our rail network if we are to bring it up to scratch and achieve the type of global service that our competitors can achieve.”

I represent Edinburgh East, including the world-famous Waverley station. I admit there have been some improvements over the past few years—we have seen the market share of the rail journey from Edinburgh to London rise to a peak of 37%—but that still leaves nearly two thirds of the people who make the journey from Edinburgh to London taking the plane. Surely that is a ridiculous situation, and we must take urgent action.

The industry will tell us that, when we get the journey time down to four hours, that is a tipping point and that will take market share to around 40% but, to get the train as the majority means of transport between Scotland and London, we will have to reduce the journey time to three hours, and that can only happen with massive investment in a high-speed network and it can only happen with a new fleet of trains. So I want the Minister to confirm that these changes that are taking place will not in any way affect the delivery in December of the roll-out of the new Azuma fleet on the east coast line and that he will engage seriously and purposefully with the Scottish Government in discussing the investment required for HST in the future.

The Scottish Government, because of devolution, have some responsibility for the rail network in Scotland, yet as with so many other things it is working in a straitjacket that is set by this place. We have repeatedly said, over a long period, that the franchise for rail services in Scotland should be run by a public sector operator. We tried, in a debate on the last Scotland Bill, to get the whole regime transferred to Holyrood, but could not find support from any other parties in this Chamber. There is now a golden opportunity, however, for the Department for Transport to take seriously the Scottish Government’s request. Now we have the ability to put a public sector operator into the tender process, there is an opportunity in Scotland—if they will not do it here—to use this to experiment to see how a contemporary public sector operation takes place. The Thatcher Government began the attacks on British Rail when, as a service, it was still reeling from the attacks of Beeching and the massive line closures. We do not know what a public sector operator would be like now if privatisation had not happened. Maybe—just maybe—we might have had trains as good as people have in France and Germany.

This is a motion of censure, and I find it surprising that the Secretary of State has absented himself from the debate. This is not a normal motion on a matter of policy; it is a motion that questions the capability and commitment of an individual. At the very least, he ought to have the decency and respect to be in attendance in this Chamber to hear the case against him.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

That is a legitimate question, but I think that it will come up in the course of debate, and it is for the Minister, not for me as Chair, to respond. Because the measure has come up quickly, I have allowed amendments to go forward without notice, but the point has been made and I am sure that it will be addressed in the course of debate. I thank the hon. Lady for making that point.

Clause 1

International road transport permits

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

‘(3A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the nature of the regulations proposed to be made under this section and an assessment of the impact of those regulations on the road haulage industry.

(3B) The Secretary of State shall make no regulation under this section during a period of no less than six months from the date of his laying before Parliament the report required in subsection (3A).’

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report outlining the nature of the proposed regulations and assess its impact on the road haulage industry, at least six months before the regulations are made.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3— Report on negotiations for a relevant international agreement—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on progress made on any negotiations to secure a relevant international agreement.

(2) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and within the period of each six months thereafter.

(3) In this section “relevant international agreement” has the same meaning as in section 1(4).’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to outline the progress made in the negotiations to secure a relevant international agreement.

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will not be too long; I just want to make some brief comments. Amendment 12 and new clause 3 both call for the Government to submit reports. When the Bill was going through the House of Lords, the Government did, surprisingly, agree to report on accidents, and I thought that as the Government had now shown a willingness to do reporting, I would try their patience and see whether we could put additional reporting requirements into the Bill.

Overall, this is enabling legislation, which will allow the Government to bring forward regulations—secondary legislation—so we still do not know what the end outcome will be with regard to the Bill and subsequent regulations. On Second Reading, I concluded that the Government were saying, “We don’t know whether part 1 of the Bill will be required. We don’t know, if it is required, what the secondary legislation will look like. We don’t know what the fees will be. We don’t know what the application process will be and whether there will be limits on the permits available.”

Amendment 12 is therefore designed to firm up on that. We want the Government, as they develop the regulations, to submit a report outlining what the impact of the regulations will be, how they will apply to the haulage industry and what they mean for it. That is very important. The haulage industry as a whole is looking for continuity of the arrangements that are in place now—the community licence system—but if for some reason the Government cannot get a suitable agreement with their European counterparts, that might lead to a number of bilateral arrangements; it might lead to a whole scenario of additional requirements for permits. That could have an impact in terms of cost and time. We want to know what it means for the haulage industry, so we want the Government to set out clearly, once they know what the regulations look like, what the impact will be on the haulage industry. I think that is a fair ask of the Minister.

I am sure that the Government will not entertain new clause 3 because it asks for updates on the international negotiation process. We know that the Government like to play their cards close to their chest. We keep hearing how no one enters negotiations saying clearly what they want, and that they should play it close to their chest and keep negotiating effectively in a closed room. But that is not good enough. We want transparency. I think it is fair to ask the Government to come back and report on how the negotiations are progressing and what that means.

The other day, the Secretary of State for Transport commented that trade unions never state what their asks are before entering into negotiations, but I would argue differently: trade unions often do set out exactly what they are looking for. There is nothing wrong in stating what is being sought in negotiations and then advising and updating Parliament on how the negotiations are going, so I am interested in what the Minister has to say about the additional reporting requirements.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

Labour Members believe that the Bill is important legislation, because it signifies many important aspects of the final agreement that is reached with the EU and the wider international community. Without it, and should negotiations result in no deal being struck, haulage movements and therefore our economy would seriously be damaged. Haulage is a servant of our economy, and getting this right is vital for its future. That is why we support the Bill and want to participate in the debate to improve it, should it ever be required. In fact, we argue that on some aspects of the Bill, regulations should be laid before the House come what may, as the Bill makes provision for improving and monitoring trailer safety. I thank the Minister for his part in this and, not least, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South.

I first turn my attention to new clause 3, which is immensely sensible in so far as it is right to highlight the intrinsic link between the Bill and the continuing international trade negotiations with both the EU and the wider international community. Smooth passage over our borders is essential for the haulage industry’s survival, and more so for the business that haulage serves.

Labour Members believe that we should remain in the community licence scheme. The scheme currently enables goods to move frictionlessly over national borders with the EU, and I would find it incredibly helpful if the Minister could state whether it is his ambition to remain within it. I appreciate that that is subject to a negotiation process but, as the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, has said, an indication of intention would not only help us to progress through the Committee sitting today, but inform those to whom the Bill would apply.

Understanding the intent of, and the progress being made in, this area of the deal could also assist in the planning of regulations associated with the Bill, which will need to be laid before the House before the UK leaves the EU, in the light of the timescales before us. Clearly there needs to be transparency, which is something the new clause brings about. We need to understand what happens after a community licence arrangement, or its equivalent, depending on where negotiations end up.

The Bill is a framework Bill and is subject to further regulations, and we appreciate that there could well be reciprocal arrangements, for instance with the EU as a partner on the continent. That, too, could assist, or have consequences for, the UK’s import and export markets.

The second part of the new clause focuses on the time by which reports must be laid in association with the Bill. Time is not on our side, and in the light of the fact that regulations need to be drafted after the Bill has completed its parliamentary process, it is right that we seek the shortest possible timeline for the preparation of the report to be presented. That will then inform any necessary regulations.

Labour is therefore fully supportive of new clause 3, and we trust that it will help with the process of smooth transition to an agreement that will assist the haulage industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am delighted to rise to speak on the amendment and the new clause. I will start by making a few outline comments about the nature of the Bill, and then I will come to the points that have been raised, including the point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham.

Let me start by explaining clause 1 in slightly more detail. The clause does not make it an automatic requirement to carry a permit. Regulations made using the clause will only require permits where our international agreements mandate it, and they will exempt specific types of journey as covered in international agreements. Regulations made under this part of the Bill will set up a framework, as has been acknowledged by Opposition Members, for a permit scheme that will then apply to any permanent agreements we reach with the EU, as well as to our existing and future agreements with non-EU countries and the European Conference of Ministers of Transport permit scheme. The effect of that is that regulations will be made under clauses 1 to 3 irrespective of what arrangements we make with the EU; the difference will be in the scope of those regulations.

We stated during proceedings on the Bill in the other place that we intend to have a permit system in place and up and running by the end of the year. That will deliver our existing permit arrangements and give businesses the certainty that we can deliver on whatever arrangements are put in place for haulage after we have left the EU. Any delay in putting that system in place will cause more uncertainty and therefore additional cost to the industry.

We will introduce regulations shortly after Royal Assent so that the system can be up and running. A requirement to lay a report and wait a further six months before laying regulations before the House would prevent us from putting in place our planned systems to support hauliers in preparing for Brexit. Hon. Members will be aware that the consultation on the Bill was launched just last week, on 16 May. That consultation is part of the UK’s preparation for its future relationship with the EU.

Our overall aim in negotiations is to maintain and develop the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage. The hon. Member for York Central asked whether it was my ambition to stay in the licensing scheme, to which the response is that our ambition is to maintain and develop the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage, as we have said.

The future deal with the EU could, however, require a form of permitting system. The Bill will allow the Government to deliver an administrative system as part of the final deal. We are consulting on how permits will be allocated and what information the hauliers will be able to provide. We want to the system to be as practical and user-friendly for hauliers as possible and we will use the consultation responses to make sure that it is.

Should there be a limit on the number of permits available for haulage travel to EU member states, we want to make sure that the permit system does not adversely affect small operators, and we are confident that our proposed system will not do so. We hope that large and small operators will respond to the consultation so that we have a good understanding of the effect of the permit scheme on different sizes of business.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister stated that he aims to move quite quickly to introduce the regulations that form the secondary part of the Bill. Can he outline how quickly these regulations will be brought forward and how they will compare with the consultation that is ongoing at the moment? We still have the negotiations to come, so it is not clear how quickly regulations can be introduced and what they will look like, because they really will have to cover myriad options.

[Jesse Norman]

As I have said, the purpose of the Bill is to put in place a framework of permits, which will continue irrespective of any specific outcome with the EU. We aim to put it in place by the end of the year. We are moving with a certain amount of speed, but in no sense hastily. We have already had widespread consultation with the industry and other stakeholders. There has been quite a high degree of cross-party support, and I was pleased that the Labour Party and the SNP did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. We have been happy to take late-tabled Opposition amendments to respect the desire to get everything in place.

That goes to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham: there is no sense of undue haste, but we seek to put the framework in place. That means that regulations will need to be laid later this year, following the consultation that is in progress. This is a careful process of putting in place regulations that we will be able to use for the longer term.

The consultation includes draft regulations so that respondents can see what we propose. In addition, we have provided policy scoping documents that outline how we intend to operate a permit scheme, and they are available in the House Library. Those documents and the response to the consultation will set out the details of what the regulations laid before the House will achieve, and what their impact will be. A further report on what future regulations will cover would provide no further benefit to Members.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will welcome the fact that in the other place, the Government added clause 9 to the Bill to honour an undertaking given by my noble colleague, Baroness Sugg. The clause will provide Parliament with a report for any relevant year on the impacts of a limited permit arrangement with the EU, should that be the outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, this legislation is designed to survive, as it were, whatever the outcome, which may be one of many different kinds. We confidently expect a liberalised access arrangement, as he knows, but it is wise to be prepared. For that reason, this is a belt-and-braces piece of legislation, but we cannot delay it further if we want to get it on to the statute book. Both parties recognise the importance of doing so.

If we secured a liberal agreement between the UK and the EU as part of a future relationship, as we expect to do, we would not be able to put the regulations in place until we had reported on the impacts, which would be minimal in this case. We would then have to wait a further six months until we could make the regulations, subject to parliamentary timescales. As a consequence of this requirement, a huge cost would be imposed on hauliers and they would not be able to take account of a deal that gave them the required access. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun intends to impose those costs on UK hauliers, including on Scottish hauliers.

Delaying the making of the regulations would delay the implementation of the agreements, and that would have a huge detrimental impact on hauliers and on our freight trade. Any delay in implementing agreements might mean that hauliers could not access and use the correct permit for their journey, which would affect their ability to take on contracts. The Bill and subsequent powers will also cover our existing non-EU-based agreements, and the amendment would encompass those agreements. If we were to strike new agreements with non-EU countries, the amendment would require us to report on them and postpone the issuing of any of those permits for six months after the report.

I hope that explanation provides the hon. Gentleman with clarity about how we propose to ensure that the regulations made under the Bill are subject to appropriate scrutiny. We will report on the effects on the UK haulage industry of any EU-related permit scheme, should there be one, where there is a limit on the number of permits available for hauliers travelling to EU member states. In that spirit, I hope he feels that he can withdraw the amendment.

New clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to report every six months, beginning three months after the Bill comes into force, on progress in negotiations to secure international agreements on the transport of goods by road to, in or through other countries. The requirement is extremely broad; it covers any relevant agreement with any other country or organisation, at any stage in the negotiations. It would catch the smallest technical amendment to an existing agreement, and it could introduce a requirement to report on negotiations when they are at a particularly delicate point and when we are unable to report the substance of our negotiating position—along the lines hinted at by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby.

The danger is that reports made under the new clause could be a mixture of the bland and the trivial. The approach of regularly setting out in public the detail of our negotiating lines, tactics and prospects of success appears to be an almost certain way to undermine our negotiation and the prospect of securing a good deal for road transport users—something that we very much believe is in prospect.

I hope that I have been clear about the Government’s objective throughout. We want and actively expect to maintain the existing liberalised access for UK hauliers. A mutually beneficial road freight agreement with the EU will support the objective of frictionless trade. We are confident that our future relationship with the EU on road freight, as part of a wider continuing relationship on trade, will be in both sides’ mutual interest. While we are negotiating with the EU, however, it is not helpful to provide Parliament with speculation about the prospects for success in the negotiations.

The reporting requirement is also perverse in its effects. It would cover any agreement that includes permits—that is the effect of tying the definition of “relevant international agreements” to that in clause 1(4)—but not liberal agreements that do not involve permits, such as our current agreements with Albania and Turkey. Reports under the proposed new clause would not provide Parliament with a useful overall picture of the state of the Government’s work to help the UK haulage industry operate internationally.

The Government have been clear throughout proceedings on the Bill that it is not intended in any way to pre-empt the nature of the agreement between the UK and the EU and the future relationship, and it is not a suitable vehicle for such amendments. When the Bill was in the other place, noble Lords tabled amendments that would have required the Government to report on how the permits regime would affect the efficiency of haulage and their expectations for future arrangements between the EU and the UK. In response to those amendments the Government introduced clause 9, which focuses on the scheme’s actual impact on the haulage industry. By contrast, new clause 3 would require reports on the progress of negotiations on prospective agreements.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun noted on Second Reading:

“when I try to get amendments through in Committee that require the Government to report on future implementation, they always vote them down”.—[Official Report, 14 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 70.]

I am sorry to disappoint him today, but I do not believe that his amendment will provide Parliament with useful information. For that reason, I hope he will withdraw it.

[Alan Brown]

I have listened to the Minster’s arguments on amendment 12, which he thinks would be burdensome. I understand some of the logic. Equally, I still think there is merit in getting the Government to report on what the regulations would look like and their impact. However, I have listened to the Minister and I am happy to withdraw the amendment, although I am still concerned about how the regulations will align with the end agreement, and how Parliament understands that. New clause 3 reflects the importance of parliamentarians and industry understanding how the negotiations are going. The Minister said that the report would pick up bland things and small technical issues, but there is nothing wrong with reporting small technical issues. That would result in a very small report that would not need too much debate or scrutiny in Parliament.

We heard the classic excuse that the negotiations might be sensitive. If they are too sensitive, that can be reported, but it would still be good for Parliament to be kept updated on the negotiations. Given that the Government are willing to incorporate clause 9—on the future impact of the regulations—it seems logical that there is merit in reporting on how negotiations are going, because that will have the biggest impact on what the permit system looks like and the outcome for the road haulage network.

Having said that, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

It might be helpful if I mention at the outset that the Committee may debate the provisions of each clause during a stand part debate, even if no amendments have been tabled to that clause. As we proceed it will be helpful if Members who wish to debate any clause in any stand part debate could indicate that clearly to the Chair, either privately in advance or when we reach the relevant clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

We have no permit schemes in place because we have liberalised transport with the Republic of Ireland. If a permanent scheme were to be put in place as a result of further negotiations or discussions with the EU, we would expect it to be of a liberalised, frictionless kind. Were it not to be of a frictionless kind—and even if it were—there would then be a requirement for some form of permit in paper form carried within a truck with a load from a UK haulier doing business to and from the Republic of Ireland. This would not affect the border arrangements in any way, in the same way that the inspection of current and community documentation does not affect border arrangements at present.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister stated clearly that there would be no transport checks affecting how things are operating at the moment. If there are no transport checks, how will the UK Government get back control of the border in terms of people and goods, which is supposedly the whole advantage of leaving the EU?

[Jesse Norman]

What we have said that there will be no transport checks at borders. We do check transport. I have been out on patrol with the DVSA, and a very effective job it does too of pulling over truckers and checking whether their documentation is in order on a whole variety of different grounds, including compliance with the community licence. That is the difference, and that is the distinction we wish to draw and that it is important to make.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Number and allocation of permits etc

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

Let me start by responding to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, which proposes that the criteria to be considered in allocating permits may include compliance with emission standards.

As the hon. Lady will know, we have launched a consultation on what the criteria should be. One criterion we have suggested is precisely the emissions class of the lorries being used. That is beneficial for European Conference of Ministers of Transport permits because it has the effect of maximising the number of ECMT permits we will have, and we can also consider applying that criterion for future permit arrangements with the EU.

Vehicles are already required to comply with emissions standards under UK law, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby has made perfectly clear. It is important to note that there can be no doubt about the Government’s commitments to a cleaner environment, on the day on which the clean air strategy has been published. That document and the intention to legislate go far beyond anything under any previous UK Government.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister confirm whether the consultation and proposed secondary regulations take transport emissions into consideration?

[Jesse Norman]

The consultation was published last week, so the hon. Gentleman is perfectly able to consult it if he wishes. It says that the emissions class of the lorries being used could be one of the criteria employed. We are consulting on that. That is the point of a consultation; we do not go in saying it will be a criterion. We consulted on it because it is important to get a balance.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

indicated assent.

[Alan Brown]

I love the rolling of the eyes as the Minister gives way.

[Jesse Norman]

I just want to make some progress.

[Alan Brown]

I want to clarify that the law of unintended consequences, which has been used as an argument against amendment 8, actually falls if the Government are already consulting on the inclusion of transport emissions.

[Jesse Norman]

The consultation is on the class of the lorries being used. If the consultation comes out in favour of an issue having some weight, the Government will look harder at what weight it should have, and will do precisely what has been contemplated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, namely balance it against potential unintended consequences. My right hon. Friend was pointing out that to legislate at this point would be to invite those unintended consequences, because it would lack the further scrutiny and balancing that a consultation is designed to give.

The Bill already gives the power to use a range of criteria, including compliance with emissions standards. It does not need to be included in the Bill for us to use that criterion. It is important that primary powers give flexibility to the criteria and allow for them to be amended in future. We intend to include those criteria in regulations, which will, of course, themselves be debated by Parliament and be subject to approval in both Houses.

We also wish—as no doubt future Governments will wish—to be able to change the criteria to make improvements to the scheme or as there are evolutionary changes in the industry. It is reasonable to include such detail in secondary legislation, which would allow those changes to be made more easily. I absolutely support the intention behind the amendment, in so far as it is to ensure that our haulage sector minimises emissions and complies with high environmental standards, but the amendment is not required to achieve that and I hope the hon. Lady will not press it.

Amendment 7, also tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, proposes removing the reference to

“first come, first served or an element of random selection”.

She asked how that would operate. It is important that those references remain in the Bill, not only because they deal with the more difficult situation, where there is a limited number of permits, but because they allow us to allocate permits in the “normal” manner, where there is no limit on permit numbers.

Let me look at the idea of first come, first served, in response to the hon. Lady. Our existing permits schemes are undersubscribed—it is very important to be aware of that—so applicants have always received what they have applied for. In 2017, for example, we issued 66 permits for Ukraine from a quota of 400. For Georgia, we issued six permits from a quota of 100. Permits are issued on demand, and in those cases it makes sense to issue permits as applications are received—that is to say, on a first come, first served basis.

In the future, where more permits may be available than are applied for, permits can be issued to all available applicants. The current drafting, with the reference to first come, first served, ensures that the Secretary of State clearly has the power to provide in regulations that permits may be allocated on that basis, and that no other factors are required to be taken into consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

In the light of the Minister’s response and of the fact that Parliament will have the opportunity to ask questions and have debates on the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Trailer Registration

[Alan Brown]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 13, page 9, line 1, at end insert—

‘(2A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing proposals for a trailer registration scheme. This report must make provision for whether—

(a) the proposed registration scheme would be compulsory or voluntary;

(b) non-commercial trailers will be included in such a registration scheme; and

(c) it would be appropriate for the operation of such a registration scheme to be run by a third-party authorised by the Secretary of State.

(2B) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament outlining their proposals for a trailer registration scheme within six months of the passing of this Act.

In many ways this is similar to amendment 12. This, again, is about trying to get further clarity from the Government about what the permit scheme might look like. The Government previously acknowledged that they did not want to put too many exemptions on the face of the Bill. There has been a whole discussion of whether the Bill might apply to non-commercial trailers, and this is about trying to tease that out. The Government should clarify the issue, because there is still talk of whether it is a compulsory or voluntary registration scheme.

We are just trying to look for clarification that the Government have to do a report that confirms whether the registration scheme will be compulsory or voluntary, whether non-commercial trailers are included, and also whether it would be appropriate for a registration scheme to be operated by a third party. The third-party issue is included because the National Caravan Council already operates its own voluntary registration scheme, and it is suggested that there is merit in duplicating this scheme. All that will depend on what the Government bring forward in terms of whether the scheme will be voluntary or compulsory, and also how matters evolve in other parts of the legislation that consider safety, and whether there should be further measures looking at road safety measures in terms of registration too. There seems a lack of clarity at the moment in what the endgame will look like. The amendment just tries to tease out whether the Government will provide that clarity and a report. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

[Rachael Maskell]

Labour supports this amendment. Clarity is needed on the eligibility of the compulsory and voluntary schemes, and the amendment would be helpful in making it clear where obligations sit in this regard. Labour wants to extend the application of the legislation to non-commercial trailers, since incidents occur as a result of poor tow bar instalment and failed safety features on domestic trailers. It is therefore important to incorporate domestic-use trailers into the scheme. The significance of a voluntary registration scheme is unclear if there are no other levers on this issue, such as liability if incidents occur. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the use of the voluntary scheme to the Committee.

However, Labour does not believe that a third-party operator should run the scheme and wants to see this kept in-house, especially as it is a critical road safety issue. We believe that this function should be exercised through an arm’s length body. We support the call not to delay producing the report mentioned in clause 13, thus ensuring that it can be used to influence the drafting of regulations to accompany this Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

We turn now to the second half of the Bill and trailer registration. I will respond to the points made and talk about the wider thrust of the legislation. Hon. Members will be aware that the consultation launched on 16 May covered the extent of the proposals in the Bill across both haulage permits and trailer registration. We are consulting with the industry to help us get the details of any permit scheme and the trailer registration scheme right. The consultation on the proposals, as they currently stand, seeks views on a number of issues relating to trailer registration. Our proposals require the registration purely of those trailers undertaking international travel to a foreign country that has ratified the 1968 Vienna convention. This goes to the point about voluntary registration. That would apply to commercial trailers weighing over 750 kg and non-commercial trailers weighing over 3.5 tonnes. Ministers and officials in the Department have been engaged with industry throughout the development of these proposals. In spring this year, we held workshops to discuss them with hauliers and relevant trade associations, among a range of other stakeholders.

In addition to the public consultation, we have published a number of documents to assist and inform discussion of the Bill. Policy papers have been issued on the Bill and on the 1968 Vienna convention, which the trailer registration scheme is being introduced to support. Policy scoping notes are available to Members in the House of Commons Library.

The Government’s outline policy makes clear which types of trailer will be subject to additional obligations if used abroad, upon the coming into force of the 1968 convention. Trailer registration is commonplace throughout continental Europe. As such, if we did not place any obligations on users taking trailers abroad that would be likely to attract targeted enforcement action from foreign enforcement authorities. That point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby on Second Reading. That enforcement action would cause disruption on a significant scale, even to those trailers that are correctly registered, and would have an adverse effect beyond hauliers, causing disruption to UK businesses and the international supply chains within which they operate.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister talks about disruption that might be caused by enforcement action. Does that not suggest that the registration scheme would need to be compulsory? If it were voluntary, it could still have the same net effect of enforcement action. Compulsion would make that easier to process.

[Jesse Norman]

We are concerned with enforcement action by foreign authorities, against which trailer registration would be a defence. That provides a reason for supporting trailer registration, as we have described it.

[Alan Brown]

If it is only voluntary, perhaps foreign enforcement agencies will not have any confidence in signing up for the scheme. If it were compulsory, one would assume they would be less likely to take enforcement because they would understand that there is already a compulsory scheme in place in the UK.

[Jesse Norman]

I think that language is not helping deliberation on this matter. We require registration for the classes of trailer that I have described, which undertake international travel to a foreign country. It is not voluntary for those trailers that fall within those categories. It is mandatory and therefore meets the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I will go on to discuss it in slightly more detail.

The Government’s outline policy makes clear which types of trailer will be subject to additional obligations if used abroad, upon the coming into force of the 1968 convention. As I have said, trailer registration is commonplace. The measure is designed to mitigate the effects of enforcement action undertaken abroad.

On the basis of engagement with industry and previously reported enforcement to UK authorities, we have drawn a distinction between commercial and non-commercial trailers, which is the basis for the higher weight limit of 3.5 tonnes for non-commercial trailers. Engagement with non-commercial stakeholders has indicated a negligible number of such trailers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful, Mr Davies. The hon. Member for Rotherham may wish to make a forensic dissection of the Government’s position or that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby when she comes to speak. However, let me address the points that she made.

The first question is: what is a commercial trailer? Of course, it is not defined by weight. There are criteria as to what constitutes a commercial trailer, and the legal definition we are using is the idea of a trailer used for transport of goods or passengers’ belongings for commercial purposes, such as transport for hire or reward, or own-account transport, or for other professional purposes. That is closely aligned with the definition of a commercial vehicle in EU law.

The hon. Lady raised earlier the question of why one would have a weight threshold. I repeat that 3.5 tonnes is a common weight threshold for additional scrutiny obligations of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby pointed to in UK law, both in EU law and in the Vienna convention. We have no evidence of countries enforcing against unregistered foreign caravans and horse trailers. The smallest enforcement action against common non-commercial trailers, such as the one described by my right hon. Friend, does not justify mandatory registration, but the keepers of such trailers will be able to register them voluntarily if they wish, and of course they are subject to other regulatory constraints.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun raised the matter of whether it would be suitable for an authorised third party to run a registration scheme. He raised the question of the status of the National Caravan Council and its CRiS—central registration and identification—scheme on Second Reading. As I said in that debate, I have previously met the NCC to discuss the proposals before us today in relation to CRiS and the scheme that it operates, for which I have a great deal of regard.

The Department’s legal team have considered that issue and the question of whether the registration standard specified in the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic allows for a private organisation to operate the service. In order to fulfil the standards of the convention, it is clear that the trailer must be registered by a ratifying country or an administrative division of the nation. In this case, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will operate the scheme, which will ensure that registration fully meets the standards outlined in the convention.

The NCC offers a valuable service to its members and to the industry more widely. The scheme is not intended to duplicate or replace the NCC’s scheme. The registration standards of the convention simply necessitate that registration is not undertaken by a third party, and we are under an obligation to obey those standards. Guidance will be issued to explain how the registration scheme applies to users. It will clarify which users do and do not need to register under the scheme before using a trailer in a 1968 convention country. The guidance will make it clear that registration is not necessary for leisure-use trailers weighing under 3.5 tonnes. As such, we do not envisage that that will replicate the work of the NCC, but the Department will continue to work with it to avert any such risk.

I appreciate the intent behind the amendment, but I hope that Members will concur that it is not necessary in the light of the significant volume of material that the Department has published regarding our proposals and the ongoing consultation. We have worked extensively to involve stakeholders in the development of the proposals, and the consultation is directly seeking views on a number of issues relating to trailer registration. That will inform the ultimate detail of the first set of regulations to enact the scheme, which Members will note will be made by the affirmative procedure, allowing for their further consideration.

[Alan Brown]

I listened to what the Minister said, and I appreciate the clarification on the third-party issue. I am not particularly precious about that, and his explanation made sense. There is sense in the DVLA overseeing the entire scheme anyway.

The Minister mentioned the unhelpful language of “voluntary or compulsory”. Truth be told, I am still a bit confused about that because clause 13 (1) says:

“Regulations may provide for the compulsory or voluntary registration of trailers kept or used on roads”.

It seems to me that it is still a bit unclear, and it would be good to get further clarity. The amendment is really about getting that clarity for all parties, so they understand what will be compulsory and what might be voluntary. That said, particularly given the discussion on paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (2A), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered,

That the programme order (this day) be amended as follows—

In paragraph (1)(a), leave out ‘2.00 pm’ and insert ‘2.30 pm’. —(Jesse Norman.)

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jo Churchill.)

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

My final point is that I hope reporting will enable the Minister to make an informed choice. Will there be additional resources for the agencies will collate the information?

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I will be brief. I want to put on record a tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Bristol South. When somebody gets elected and spends a lot of time in this place, they want to be able to say that they have made a difference. After three years of campaigning, the hon. Lady has been able to include in this Bill clauses that could make the difference, and obviously in the future they might lead to further regulations and a further enhancement of road safety, which would be for the benefit of us all. I thank her for her work, and commend the Minister and Government for an unusual approach—they actually worked with the hon. Lady to get to this point and to further improve the legislation.

My one “but” would be about the tow bar amendments. We have heard some fantastic examples of the risk and the potential weak point in the system—how tow bars are fitted and the subsequent maintenance work required. Hopefully the Minister will reflect on what he has heard, particularly the statistic that there is a 91% inspection fail rate, which should cause alarm bells to ring.

I congratulate both the hon. Lady and the Minister, but the Government must still consider those other aspects.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to all colleagues for the very thoughtful and intelligent contributions they have made. I will pick up on each of the issues they have raised.

Perhaps I can start with the hon. Member for Bristol South who, in many ways, is the mother of these amendments. Her point about the importance of affecting driver behaviour and driver education has also been made separately and forcibly to me by the hon. Members for Rotherham and for York Central—it is very important and well understood. In due course, there may well be a case for extending our road safety communications more widely. As the hon. Member for Bristol South will know, we are effective in many ways on road safety education, but it is important that we cover all aspects, so I am grateful to her for that comment.

The hon. Lady asked whether the trailer safety report will fall away. The answer is that it will not. That is because I hope and suspect that the Bill will be enacted—with the support of the Opposition, it certainly will be—and even if it is not enacted, the Government have made a commitment to produce a report according to the standards we have outlined.

Let me pick up on a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham. Of course, it is an offence to use a trailer on the road that is not roadworthy or that is in an unfit condition. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight, as several Members have, the 91% figure found on the assessment. Without getting too philosophical—the House will know my background in this area—there is a difference between data and evidence, and small numbers of data. We need a more comprehensive view. When we have one, we can legislate if we need to with certainty. If we need to regulate, we can do so with all the comfort and assurance that we would need.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

My final point is that I hope reporting will enable the Minister to make an informed choice. Will there be additional resources for the agencies will collate the information?

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I will be brief. I want to put on record a tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Bristol South. When somebody gets elected and spends a lot of time in this place, they want to be able to say that they have made a difference. After three years of campaigning, the hon. Lady has been able to include in this Bill clauses that could make the difference, and obviously in the future they might lead to further regulations and a further enhancement of road safety, which would be for the benefit of us all. I thank her for her work, and commend the Minister and Government for an unusual approach—they actually worked with the hon. Lady to get to this point and to further improve the legislation.

My one “but” would be about the tow bar amendments. We have heard some fantastic examples of the risk and the potential weak point in the system—how tow bars are fitted and the subsequent maintenance work required. Hopefully the Minister will reflect on what he has heard, particularly the statistic that there is a 91% inspection fail rate, which should cause alarm bells to ring.

I congratulate both the hon. Lady and the Minister, but the Government must still consider those other aspects.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to all colleagues for the very thoughtful and intelligent contributions they have made. I will pick up on each of the issues they have raised.

Perhaps I can start with the hon. Member for Bristol South who, in many ways, is the mother of these amendments. Her point about the importance of affecting driver behaviour and driver education has also been made separately and forcibly to me by the hon. Members for Rotherham and for York Central—it is very important and well understood. In due course, there may well be a case for extending our road safety communications more widely. As the hon. Member for Bristol South will know, we are effective in many ways on road safety education, but it is important that we cover all aspects, so I am grateful to her for that comment.

The hon. Lady asked whether the trailer safety report will fall away. The answer is that it will not. That is because I hope and suspect that the Bill will be enacted—with the support of the Opposition, it certainly will be—and even if it is not enacted, the Government have made a commitment to produce a report according to the standards we have outlined.

Let me pick up on a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham. Of course, it is an offence to use a trailer on the road that is not roadworthy or that is in an unfit condition. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight, as several Members have, the 91% figure found on the assessment. Without getting too philosophical—the House will know my background in this area—there is a difference between data and evidence, and small numbers of data. We need a more comprehensive view. When we have one, we can legislate if we need to with certainty. If we need to regulate, we can do so with all the comfort and assurance that we would need.