Integrated Rail Plan: Northern Powerhouse Area

Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

If my noble friend will forgive me, does he think that its record on Great Western electrification is creditable to Network Rail? The costs are running at about four times the projection and it is taking three times as long as it was supposed to.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, this is only a one-hour debate and we are quite short on time.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Briefly, Great Western electrification finished about five years ago and Network Rail has improved things as a result. That was true at that time but things have got a lot better.

What is missing from this document is a real acceptance by the Department for Transport that the decision-making on strategies and routes, priorities and deliveries should rest with the northern powerhouse/Transport for the North members—the local authorities which know their areas. That is devolution. I am afraid that the document has demonstrated the department’s inability to plan and deliver to time and budget. It should give TfN a chance.

If the Government were honest in wanting to improve the rail network in the north and Midlands, they would cancel the bits of HS2 that they are funding and put all the remaining funds included in the IPR into not only giving much-improved capacity and speed on the two east-west axes—Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and Hull, and Sheffield, Birmingham, Derby and Nottingham—but improving the many secondary lines in each area. So many people rely on those for their daily commuting to school, colleges, work, levelling-up and everything else.

I fear that this Department for Transport will result only in nothing happening for the next few years and I hope that it not the case. I hope that the Minister, when she replies, will say that I have got it completely wrong that it does not matter that Bradford is only connected to the south and not east-west. I hope she will sit down with her colleagues in the department and northern powerhouse people and come up with a solution that is acceptable to all.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd March 2018 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

I was the Opposition Front Bench spokesman for transport in your Lordships’ House; if I was in the noble Lord’s position again, I would make exactly the same speech.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for taking part in this debate. First, I will cap the stories of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about tyres and MoTs. When I first got a car, also aged 17—I am probably older than the noble Lord—I was driving along quite happily and suddenly there was a nasty clunk and the car went down on one side. I looked out of the window, wondering what had happened, and saw a wheel going past me—it was mine.

Obviously, Freddie’s death was absolutely tragic. As a mother and a grandmother, I cannot imagine what those parents must be going through. Of course, we take trailer safety incredibly seriously. The issue was discussed at Second Reading, but I will go into it a little bit further to explain the point.

The UK has a world-leading road safety record, which extends to trailers. The number of casualties as a result of collisions involving a towing vehicle is relatively low compared with other road user groups. There has also been a steady decline in incidents and breakdowns involving a trailer since 2009. There were still around 5,000 incidents per year, equating to 13 incidents per day, as of 2015. The Government are committed to continuing to make progress on this.

The key safety issues for trailers generally relate to how vehicles towing trailers are driven and how securely the trailers are attached to vehicles, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said. It is important that we continue to improve safety through education, enforcement and improving the safety of vehicles. Almost all new trailers are already subject to type approval ahead of their entry into service, and in the case of larger trailers an annual testing regime is already in place. I appreciate that noble Lords may well be familiar with these measures, but it may be useful if I speak about this a little more.

The current type approval scheme applies in much the same way as motor vehicles are subject to approval before they can be legally sold in the UK. It has been in place since 2012. Approvals are generally issued for a type of vehicle on a model-by-model basis. I can give reassurance that overwhelmingly under this regime all new trailers are subject to type approval before entering into service, with very limited exemptions. These exceptions include certain agricultural and forestry trailers, and trailers not intended to be towed by a vehicle with a maximum speed over 25 kph.

In the case of imported units, or self-built trailers which have not been type approved, there is a scheme in place for individual approval. To ensure that this system operates correctly, the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency already has the power to undertake inspections or tests of a trailer as it sees fit. The annual testing regime applies to most commercial trailers weighing over 1,020 kilograms and almost all trailers weighing over 3,500 kilograms. As my noble friend Lord Attlee mentioned, commercial trailers in this category are subject to the DVSA issuing consent to sell prior to entering into service, at which point a ministry number associated with a manufacturer’s number is allocated to an individual trailer, and it is plated accordingly. This test is applicable on an annual basis from 12 months following the date at which the trailer is first sold or supplied. The test may be undertaken at a DVSA facility or an approved testing facility, although in all cases the test is completed by a DVSA inspector and to a consistent standard. In 2016-17, around a quarter of a million trailers were subject to the annual test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The Minister gave us a figure for the number of accidents. I wonder whether she could look at the number of fatalities and write to us with that information.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

Absolutely, I have that information here. Trailer and caravan-related collisions accounted for 2% of the 1,787 total number of those killed or seriously injured in collisions in 2015.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

But that does not tell us what happened or give us the explanation for the accident. It may well have involved a large trailer that was overweight; small trailers might be excluded. In case there are amendments on Report, perhaps the Minister can give us some information on that matter.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

Yes, absolutely. We will look further into it and see what other data we can find.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, although I am grateful for it and for the information she has given us. I think that one death is one death too many, and the case I mentioned was particularly tragic. Let us be clear about this: it involved a tonnage lower than the 3.5 tonnes level. Nevertheless, it was clearly sufficiently heavy to be fatal. As I understand it, the victim was crushed by the weight of the trailer, and that was obviously the cause of his death.

The circumstances of the crash are such that although the driver, who was brought to court, was clearly responsible for the death, he received a sentence of 200 community hours and a six-month driving ban, whereas had he been over an alcohol limit we all know that he would likely have faced a term of imprisonment, because that is what is applied. Had he been on his mobile phone, quite possibly a similar penalty would have been imposed, but because it related to a defect, the penalty was rather different. One can understand the anger and frustration of the parents: they want a sense of justice. That is why they have a web page calling for justice for Freddie. While we can all express sympathy, we will never bring Freddie back, but they are very compassionate people and they want to make sure that something is done that drives down the number of fatalities, however low it is. I accept that 2% is quite low, but there are a large number of accidents: 5,000 was the figure given, and 1,700 killed or seriously injured is in itself no small number.

I accept the general point that road safety has been steadily improving over the years, largely because of improvements in vehicles and because we have become better drivers as a consequence of improved training and so on. But I think there is still an issue here. The weight level needs to be lower. More work needs to be done on this. Although obviously I will withdraw the amendment today, it would helpful if we could have some further discussions before the next stage of the Bill, and I retain the right to bring a similar amendment back—perhaps an amendment that the department and the Minister would find more agreeable—on Report. This is a significant issue and we should always try to do as much as we possibly can to improve safety. After all, it is the steady accretion of intelligent regulation that has driven down the number of road-related accidents and deaths over time. For instance, going back to the 1960s, people were not that happy when safety belts were introduced but they have made a massive difference to the outcome of road traffic accidents, as have many other features that have mandatorily been imposed on motorists, including alcohol limits, which have made a very significant difference as well.

We should always look for those opportunities and, as the impact assessment says, this is one. It is a question of getting the balance right between regulation and continuing as we are. I make a strong appeal to the Government, the Minister and the officials to give that some further thought, because there is more we can do here.

Buses

Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

My Lords, I think this is the third debate in Grand Committee about bus services. One was tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and one by my noble friend Lady Randerson. Having read the debates, I thought that the conclusions really meant almost nothing at all; the words went into the air but the actions did not follow.

Much time is spent by politicians discussing the bus industry. Unfortunately, most of them talk about ownership. This has little to do with the major issue that confronts the bus operators: congestion. The use of buses in England outside London has been on a downward trend for about nine or 10 years. Congestion affects private and public sector operators regardless of ownership. I often travel on buses in Reading, which are run by a municipal company, and in Oxford, where the companies are privately owned. In both cities there are fairly effective partnership arrangements, modern vehicles and enterprising ticketing systems, which are improving. Nevertheless, they are suffering declining levels of patronage caused by congestion, which is felt throughout Great Britain. This subject will form the core of my remarks. I hope that the Minister, in her reply, can give some positive answers.

First, I draw attention to the fact that the bus industry has suffered a significant decline in financial support relative to the car. Fuel duty for road transport has been frozen since 2011. The bus service operator’s grant, which the bus industry has traditionally enjoyed, has been reduced by about 20%; that means that, relative to the car, its costs associated with fuel have increased. Wages in the bus industry have to be competitive to attract and keep drivers, because bus driving is not a very nice job, and have risen well in advance of general wage levels, particularly in the cities.

Another fiscal measure that needs close examining is the availability of concessionary travel to young people. These people have a high propensity to travel and will make more and more journeys if they can afford it. Making young persons’ railcards available on trams and buses—as well as trains—would stimulate travel, and serious consideration should be given to this measure. It might not be very expensive because of the high propensity to travel. It would also be a disincentive to car ownership. It really is time we stopped talking about this and moved on to some action.

However, bus operators must shoulder high fixed costs. They have to provide vehicles of higher and higher standards because the engines’ emissions have to keep improving; they pay wages that rise faster than average; and they must operate to high standards of reliability and punctuality to retain or increase market share—and indeed to continue to enjoy the privilege of a licence to operate.

The efforts of operators to maintain standards of punctuality are frustrated by increasing traffic congestion. It has been shown that efforts by the bus industry to maintain punctuality by increasing the number of buses operating on a route increases operators’ costs by an average of some 8%. However, it provides no additional revenue, and if costs are passed on through higher fares, passenger numbers decline further and we are in a vicious circle. One is forced into a situation where government, either nationally or locally, must take action if effective remedies are to be found for the problems of bus punctuality. Almost any initiative the companies can make without tackling the problems associated with congestion is likely to fail.

That brings us to the fundamental question of why so much is done in cities to encourage car use and so little to facilitate bus operation. Is it because of the intense pressure from the motoring lobby or the cowardice of politicians nationally or locally—local authorities vie with each another to attract cars to their shops with offers of highly subsidised parking, often ignoring the land values attaching to city-centre car parks—or is it because of an unwillingness to get tough with obstructive parking? When all these advantages are weighed in any objective assessment, what advantage does the bus have and who speaks for the bus user? In this situation, should not government, local or national, try to redress the balance effectively?

What ambitions are available apart from effective road markings and effective enforcement? Obviously, the simplest is the introduction of road user pricing. This can be made fiscally neutral by adjustments to vehicle excise duty but it would mean that those who chose to drive on the busiest roads at the busiest times would pay more and those in the country would pay less or, more likely, nothing at all. This use of the pricing mechanism is the way that markets work in almost every other field, and I believe it is the policy of the Government. Pricing would be time-related so that small charges would be made between the peaks and none at all at night. The whole process could be conducted automatically, so there would be no need for vehicles to stop. The technology is essentially the same for policing low-emission areas and can be expected to operate reliably.

The Traffic Management Act 2004, brought into force by the then Labour Government, provided for some measures to deal with congestion, including decriminalisation of certain offences such as abuse of parking regulations. These may be enforced by local authorities, which are enabled to retain the proceeds from penalty notices to defray the costs of enforcement. Most local authorities elected to apply to take up these powers, although some still have not. In fact, the area in which I live in South Oxfordshire has not done so and has tried to rely on police enforcement, which does not exist. The police have far greater priorities—we have only to look at what has gone on in Salisbury.

The result is that dangerous and illegal parking is rife in the area, which has undesirable consequences in terms of congestion. It also brings the law into disrepute. Because people see offences routinely not being prosecuted, they push further and further and ignore other regulations. However, local authorities which have adopted these decriminalised powers wish to go further to eliminate some other offences which aggravate congestion, such as illegal right turns and the abuse of yellow box junctions. Powers for Her Majesty’s Government exist within Schedule 6 to the Act but have not been brought into effect outside London, despite huge pressure from the Local Government Association. I urge the Minister to agree to do this right away and to impress on those local authorities that have not adopted the decriminalised powers to do so quickly.

Access to the highway for roadworks, mostly by the utilities, causes delay. Under the same Act, we were supposed to see “highway management”, which would see some control exercised over the utilities by the introduction of things such as lane rental. What has become of this, and why does the Minister think that the co-ordination of roadworks, which was promised at the time, does not work? Highway maintenance causes delays for which the supposed remedy of lane rental has not been an effective response, while the unresolved problem of potholes goes from bad to worse. It is no good berating the bus companies about punctuality, as Transport Focus does, unless the root causes are tackled by the Government. Buses, unlike the railways, have no control over the highways on which they operate. That control belongs to government, both local and national, as does the enforcement of their operation.

Partnerships work well in some areas such as Brighton, but even there some 13 buses have been added since 2012 to the fleet of 200—

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

I am sorry, but the noble Lord’s time to speak is up.

[Lord Bradshaw]

I am sorry, but I have almost finished. Those buses have been added because of the effects of congestion. In Oxford, in 1996 the journey from Abingdon to the city centre took 70 minutes but now takes 96. Within the city, a trip to Kidlington which in 1986 took 60 minutes now takes 80. I have many other examples from elsewhere around the country. The single issue I want to hear more about from the Minister is what the Government propose to do about congestion.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder whether I might be permitted a brief intervention. I do so with some diffidence and an apology to your Lordships for not being present on Second Reading, for diary reasons, although I have sat in on some of the subsequent parts of the Bill.

I too have an interest to declare. Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I live quite close to Prestwick Airport—almost as close as he does, but on the other side of the runway. However, I am glad to say that I am on the same side of the argument as him. I strongly endorse all that he said with such clarity, efficiency and thoroughness throughout all the stages of the Bill. Regarding the suitability of Prestwick Airport—I know that we are talking about the Bill, not just Prestwick Airport; I had better say first that it was a good Bill and is now a better Bill as a result of the consideration it has had—I cannot help but support its case. It is a fine, well-established airport of long standing. It was a base for the stratocruisers that left London, on their way to New York; they stopped there to refuel, both outwards and inwards. From there, it moved on to another fine record, with the location of Scottish Aviation. It now has 2,300 aerospace jobs nearby. It is close to the sea and open at all hours. Really, it is underused, but it has a basic infrastructure that could receive all the elaborate infrastructure needed for a space base.

There is a slightly broader point that is briefly worth making. The fact remains that the Scottish economy is trailing that of the rest of the United Kingdom, for reasons that I will not indulge in, for political reasons. In Scotland, the Ayrshire economy is also suffering to a considerable degree. It is one of the most socially deprived areas in Scotland, with one in five people living in a deprived area—rather more than in the rest of Scotland. Unemployment is at nearly 8% in Ayrshire, compared to 5% in the rest of Scotland. There is a strong case for the triggering of a huge potential economic payback from the circumstances in which the spaceport would be located.

The Government made a commitment in their manifesto at the last election to invest in Scotland. This is an opportunity to do so.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lord, this is not a Third Reading speech. You are meant to just quickly say thank you and then we will move on.

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

I will bring my speech to an immediate conclusion. These are important, but peripheral, points. The essential point is that the Bill is a fine one and that Prestwick is an ideal location. I wish the Bill all speed for the rest of its passage.