Science Research Funding in Universities (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University, and my husband is part of a research team which receives Research Council funding. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the committee on an excellent and very clear report. I am particularly pleased by its perceptive analysis of the dangers inherent in the recommendations of the Augar review, where there was a strong risk of a race to the bottom. The problem is that this report is from a different world: a pre-Covid world, in which we still expected to get an agreement with the EU for a post-Brexit deal.

So the problems that this report sets out are compounded and magnified, first, by the lack of any sign of an agreement with the EU—for instance, on our future involvement in Erasmus or in Horizon Europe. Given the lack of progress and the short time left for a solution, the lack of firm plans from government on replacement funding is already putting UK research on the back foot, as it takes a long time to plan and work up a research proposal. That cannot be done until you know the terms of the funding you need to apply for. Eleven per cent of research funds have come from the EU—enough to create a major gap—and most of these projects were by definition international collaborations, providing kudos and intellectual reach for our universities.

Secondly, there is the massive impact of Covid, which is serious for universities for several reasons. They use fees paid by foreign students to cross-subsidise their research, and this has been encouraged by successive Governments. We do not yet know how many foreign students will actually arrive to start courses this year, or return to complete them. The next month or so will tell, but it is very likely that there will be far fewer of them. Universities were already at an international disadvantage in attracting foreign students. The report quotes £1,200 for the cost of a visa for foreign students wanting to do a PhD here, compared with around £300 in Canada or Australia. Despite promised changes, there will still be huge costs.

I remind the Government that prior to the pandemic we were already struggling to maintain our international competitiveness and our reputation as an open and welcoming country, which has taken a huge knock as a result of the rhetoric surrounding the Brexit debate. As an aside, the A-level results fiasco has been an additional cost for universities, particularly those already struggling to balance their books.

On other sources of funding, charities have funded 15% of research over past years but they have been badly hit by the virus. Demand for their services have gone up but donations have gone down. Many charities have seen a big drop in donations. Four per cent of university research income comes from business, mainly big business—companies such as Rolls-Royce and Airbus. We all know what has happened to them during the pandemic. At a time when they are making thousands of workers redundant, they are unlikely to take up the slack left by our departure from the EU. So we rely on government as a source of funding, and that government funding has stagnated in recent years. The Government now have to take up that challenge, increase funding in real terms and fill the gaps left by the other traditional sources of funding. We cannot take our position at the head of world research for granted.

UK Net Zero Emissions Target

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the other place, which we welcome. I am pleased to hear the Government confirm they will be adopting Labour’s policy, announced at our 2018 conference, to target net zero emissions before 2050. I look forward to examining the statutory instrument that legislates for this target, and hope that time is found as soon as is reasonably possible to give it appropriate debate. Can the Minister confirm when it might be timetabled?

This has become a generational issue. Parliament and Government must recognise the growing challenge of climate change. Meeting the target of net zero emissions by 2050 is the only way to avoid a climate catastrophe and the horrors that could be realised if the world does not come together to prevent a 1.5 degree temperature rise. Net zero emissions by 2050 must not be left as an ambitious aim; it must become a real achievement. The Government are not even on track to meet their existing climate targets, so they have a long way to go to engender confidence. We need only look to the comments made by the Committee on Climate Change and official BEIS statistics to see that the UK is far from meeting its fourth and fifth carbon budgets at present. The Government must show immediately that there is a genuine commitment to this new goal.

Will the Minister outline in detail the immediate steps the Government will take to ensure that the public can be confident that these targets will be met? The UK most emphatically needs a green industrial revolution to answer key questions and target causes of emissions today.

First, what policies does the UK need to clean up our gas supply? We need to develop carbon capture and storage and enable industry to use clean sources. Fracking is not an answer to today’s challenge. Secondly, the Government must dismantle the blockages to onshore wind. They need to make sure that the cheapest form of renewable energy is able to contribute, and support new, innovative projects, low emissions and renewables, as the House discussed last week in relation to tidal power. Instead of closing down options, such as feed-in tariff schemes, the Government must enable commercial solar development to flourish.

Thirdly, what is the Government’s policy on nuclear energy? What is the appropriate response on size of schemes between the Hinkley Point development and small modular reactors? We need urgent answers. Fourthly, what are the immediate plans of action for transport? Last month’s electric vehicle registration figures show that new registrations are down almost 5% on last year and the use of buses is in freefall. Is the Department for Transport signed up to this target? Does the department realise that it needs to develop new policies? Can the Minister confirm what steps the Government will now take to increase the uptake of environmentally friendly forms of transport? How will they ensure that clean transport becomes affordable to working families so that they can feel engaged and contributing, not remaining chained to expensive polluting fuels?

There are many issues right across government. Another example of where clarity is needed is on zero emission homes. Home insulation measures have fallen by 98% since 2010. The UK needs to deal with immediate problems, and any policies put forward on offsetting emissions must be developed not to export or bypass our problems but as a route to going further and faster. The UK must look even further into the future towards paying back its carbon debt.

The threat facing the world from climate change is the greatest in human history, and responsibility for addressing it crosses all departments. While I welcome the Government’s Statement and the target of zero net emissions by 2050, it must be realised that every government department should report back to Parliament on how they are contributing to reaching our climate targets.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, this is obviously a very welcome Statement, and all the more so because it is such a surprise. It has been a real conversion on the road to Damascus by this Government, which as a general rule have not featured environmental issues and climate near the top of their priorities. In fact, the Government have been keen to abandon a number of policies introduced during the coalition Government by Ed Davey when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. That has led to a loss of impetus in the renewable energy industries. In practice, 2050 may still be too late, especially if the Government and their successors adopt the tactic of leaving the heavy lifting until last. They cannot simply reach for a few easy plastic straws; they have to tackle the really difficult issues at the start, and there has to be a very steep trajectory of change if this is to have the impact it should.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to transport policy. That will certainly need to be one of the first government policies to be revolutionised as a result of this new approach. Will the Government now rethink their leisurely approach to ending the manufacture of petrol and diesel cars? The date they have set is 2040. The industry is going to get there well before then, but it needs to have the Government supporting and encouraging it as well as pushing it along the way, so 2030 would be a much better date. Will the Government rethink their decision to reduce subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles and their approach to the abandonment of the electrification of the railways?

Turning to energy, will the Government reconsider their opposition to the Swansea tidal lagoon? It has a huge contribution to make, along with subsequent lagoons around the coast once one is built. As I say, that could make a huge contribution to renewable energy in our country. How can the Government expect to reach this target when fracking is still a UK energy source?

Finally, what steps are the Government taking to encourage other nations to follow suit and to pursue ambitious global targets to mitigate the effects of the climate emergency? The Statement refers to the importance of working with other countries. I would be grateful if the Minister gave some specific examples of the way in which the Government will approach this in future.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their—I suppose I ought to say “relatively”—positive welcome for this Statement. I think I heard a slightly more positive welcome from their colleagues in another place when I listened to my right honourable friend make the Statement I am merely repeating. Anyway, I got some sort of welcome.

I will deal with some of the points made on the negative side of their so-called welcome—first, the allegation yet again that we are failing to meet the existing targets. We have met the first two carbon budgets, are on track to meet the third and are over 90% of the way to meeting the fourth and fifth. Many of the policies and proposals in the Clean Growth Strategy published a little under two years ago are taken into account. Obviously, there is more to be done, but we are making progress, doing what we can and will continue to do what we can. As advised by the climate change committee, we now want to set stricter and more testing targets as necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked what steps we are taking. He knows about the 2017 Clean Growth Strategy. I hope he is awaiting the energy White Paper that will come out later in the summer, and we will probably have a chance to discuss this matter in greater detail when we get the statutory instrument. He asked when that will come before the House, and at this point I have to say that that is beyond my control. I am awaiting advice from the usual channels and will be ready and available to debate that with all noble Lords as and when it is ready.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, then posed a number of specific questions about various forms of renewable energy, such as why we could not do more onshore. I point him to the success of offshore wind: we have seen a dramatic decrease in the costs of offshore energy, are now the world leaders in offshore wind energy and are making great strides forward. He asked what we are doing about nuclear. As I have made clear in a number of recent debates in this House, we are still committed to nuclear, which can provide carbon-free energy and the baseload we need at this stage. We will continue to pursue the possibilities of nuclear, but not at any cost—as my right honourable friend made clear when he made the announcements about Moorside and Wylfa. Again, we will continue to look at possibilities for expansion regarding small modular reactors, advanced modular reactors and so on.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, then asked about transport. I can assure him that the Department for Transport is signed up, and we will continue to pursue the policy of phasing out petrol and diesel cars by 2040. I do not think it is right and proper that we should bring that forward. To answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the automotive industry deals in quite long periods of time. To disrupt it in such a way, as it is beginning the process of moving to electric vehicles, would not be good for that industry. We have seen the problems that Bridgend is facing; a Statement on that was made only two days ago. To bring forward that sort of disruption before the industry was ready would not be right or responsible.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about buildings, homes and so on. Again, I point to recent debates we have had on statutory instruments bringing in new obligations on landlords to ensure that their homes are suitably insulated. We have announced the future homes standards, with new-build homes being future-proofed with low-carbon heating and world-leading levels of energy efficiency by 2025, along with the energy efficiency regulations I referred to.

The noble Baroness also asked about Swansea tidal; again, I do not want to repeat everything I have said about that. We have debated that matter, and we debated the general aspects of tidal lagoons only last week. Yes, it is possible, if it can be done at an affordable price, but there is no point building a lagoon that is going to cost probably two or three times as much as nuclear power when one also has to take into account the carbon footprint of building things such as Swansea tidal. In effect, concrete and other matter is simply poured into the ground. Concrete, as we know, also has a fairly big carbon footprint, so do not think that tidal is going to be the be-all and end-all. It might be, and we will continue to offer help and research in that area, but it is not necessarily the answer to everything.

The noble Baroness also asked about fracking. It is right that we should continue to pursue a policy of looking at shale gas extraction. Gas is obviously going to continue to be a major part of our energy mix for some time. Shale gas extraction has a role to play as a transition fuel, and I hope all noble Lords will bear in mind that it offers us the possibility of greater energy security as we see quantities of gas in the North Sea decline. Is it not far better that we use our own gas, rather than import it from countries of a rather dubious sort in other parts of the world? I would have thought that the answer is yes, and we will continue to pursue the possibilities of shale gas extraction as we can.

Lastly, the noble Baroness asked how we are going to encourage others. My right honourable friend made it clear in the Statement that we are very keen to host COP26 next year. He also mentioned the praise we have received from the International Energy Agency for what we have achieved so far. We are the leading G7 country in this field and we can provide a good example not only for this country but for the rest of the world, and we will continue to do so.

Nissan in Sunderland

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again, I understand why the noble Baroness talks about the uncertainty in Sunderland and the rest of the north-east—an area that I remind her voted heavily back in June 2016 to come out. I particularly remember the vote on that night. A great many of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, will remember the moment when the vote took place in Sunderland. Anyway, we will continue to work, as I said, for the north-east and my right honourable friend made that clear. She also drew attention to the EU-Japan trade agreement. That gives us a model for what we want to work for. That is what we will do to secure the future of the people of Sunderland and I hope the noble Baroness will assist us in that.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the Government recently removed and reduced some of the grants for those buying hybrid and electric cars. Since then, sales of those vehicles have been very sluggish. That is yet another problem for the automotive industry to deal with. So will the Government undertake to restore incentives to purchase the cleanest vehicles and, at the same time, assist our automotive industry?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will not discuss specific grants for any specific type of vehicle. I have made it quite clear that we are committed to supporting research and suchlike in new technologies for new vehicles because things of this sort are changing. Getting any grant structure right is obviously very difficult. One wants to avoid perverse incentives that push people down the wrong route—one thinks possibly of incentives made in terms of the pricing of diesel. The fact is that we no longer support diesel in the way that previous Governments did, and that has had a big effect on the market. But we are committed to seeing new technologies emerge in this area.

Discontinuing Seasonal Changes of Time (EUC Report)

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the debate is sufficiently late in the evening for it not to have provoked a long list of people wanting to debate the issue of summer time and winter time changes rather than the specific report.

As a member of the committee, I confess that I had some doubts about the decision to produce this report on a reasoned opinion. I rather felt that, notwithstanding the forceful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the issue of subsidiarity had been effectively established. After all, years ago we accepted the EU’s right to instruct us, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, to synchronise our dates for moving to and from summer time. If we think that the EU can tell us when to do that, what is different about its right to tell us to make a decision about which time zone we want to be in and to stick to it for the whole of the year? Effectively, the EU established its power and influence on this in past years. Maybe the Minister can reflect on that in his response.

However, I share the concerns that this is not the time to do this. In particular, I have very serious concerns that the lead-in period to this change is very short—unrealistically short—because there will be practical issues. There are transport timetables that have already been sorted out for the next year, for example. Then there is the technology of all the systems in our homes that are set and timed to change twice a year. I assume that will all need adjustment in due course if this change were to be introduced. When I was young, when summer time and winter time came in you went and solemnly changed the hour on the clock. Then we went through this nightmare scenario where you had to read an instruction book of about 100 pages first so you could work out how to change the hour on your digital clock or heating system or whatever it was. Now, thank goodness, we have gone through to a phase where these changes happen automatically, but I assume that someone has to tell them to do that automatically, and that they are set to do it in a particular way. If we are going to change the way we do things, there needs to be a substantial lead-in time so that technological solutions can be found.

There is justifiable criticism of the response to the consultation by the EU. It is worth saying that this was the largest ever response to any EU consultation, so I do not think you can criticise the numbers. What you can criticise is the lack of balance in the number of respondees. Germany responded enthusiastically because there was a lively public debate on this, but its interests on this are very different from those in the very north of the EU and particularly different from those in the very south. Therefore, it is important that every country has a number of respondees to represent the interests of that concern from their country.

Although I think synchronisation with the rest of the EU is desirable in many ways, there is, at the very least, an important issue about delaying it for a proper and lively debate, so that this is something Europe looks to in maybe three, four or five years’ time rather than within the next calendar year.

I reflect on the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord German about Ireland. The problems on the Irish border—if this goes ahead and we are not members of the European Union—will be compounded by being in a different time zone from the rest of the EU for part of the year.

The evidence from across the world demonstrates that the impact of time differences on the ability to trade effectively is considerable and that is what the EU was aiming at: to improve trade circumstances. If we could trade as easily with the USA and Australia as we can with the EU, then, clearly, we would have a much higher proportion of our trade with those two countries, but the time zones make a big difference. There is an issue of common sense here. Why have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland—three countries that are not members of the EU—aligned themselves with the EU in changing their time from winter time to summer time on the same dates? They have done it because it suits business and, I dare say, we would continue to do the same thing in future, so it makes sense to simplify our time zones and reduce our differences with our trading neighbours.

However, what we are doing to ourselves over Brexit is equivalent to putting ourselves on the other side of the world in terms of time. Pragmatically, and in reality, we need to concentrate on the issues that are of most concern to us at this time and we do not need to be distracted by this particular concern.

I am prepared to accept that we should not sign up to this initiative, at least not at this time and without better preparation. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, ring true with me that this is not the time to do this. The issue of summer time, winter time and those changes is hugely divisive across the country, between the north of Scotland and southern England. At this moment, our country is bitterly divided on Brexit, and the last thing we need to do is add to those divisions by messing around with the clocks.

Space Policy

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in another place. We welcome this investment in the UK space sector. Having said that, the ink is scarcely dry on the Space Industry Act, a skeleton Act focusing, quite rightly, on important insurance concerns and on making sure that this fledgeling sector is not stifled at birth by planning issues, complaints about noise or nuisance or environmental concerns. If it is to thrive, the industry we all want to see will require a strong regulatory framework, so when will the secondary legislation that the Minister referred to be brought forward for consideration by this House?

The global space economy market is currently valued at around £160 billion and it is estimated that it will grow to nearly £400 billion by 2030. Most of the expertise and activity is based in the USA, so setting up in direct competition is certainly a bold step. We have heard today that the UK industry is worth £13.7 billion and employs 38,000 people which are big numbers. The target set out in the Statement is 10% of the global market, or £40 billion, which is a big jump. We need a bit more detail about how the Government intend that to happen. The Minister might be aware that the Government’s industrial strategy promised £1 billion of investment in space technology over four years. This announcement is significantly less than that. When do the Government expect to announce the release of further funds for developing spaceflight capabilities? Since there has been some mention of it in the Statement, when will the Government publish a sector deal for space which might also give us some of the detail of how the money is to be created and spent?

Finally, the proposed vertical spaceport site in Sutherland will be the northernmost operational spaceport in the world. As a Scot, I am all for the message this sends to the UK and to Scotland—and indeed for the support it implies for the union. As I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, however, spaceports are overwhelmingly sited near the equator. This is not just for the weather; it is where the earth’s rotational speed is highest, allowing rockets to harness an additional natural boost. There is a point about polar orbits which I recognise, but this is an outlier decision. Can the Minister confirm that the funding announced today takes into account the potential extra costs associated with this location? Can he also set out the countervailing arguments that were used in choosing this location? Linked to this, what steps are the Government taking to ensure a fair regional distribution of space sector supply chains and the associated impact this will have on good jobs in the sector across the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, these announcements are good news for Sutherland and Cornwall—if we have in future a space industry to use them. I am a member of the EU Sub-Committee on the Internal Market. We recently visited Harwell, which is mentioned in this Statement. The scientists working in the industry there are very concerned, rather than very excited, because they are already being squeezed out of aspects of the Galileo programme. They reported that companies and highly skilled individuals in the industry are already moving abroad and companies are planning to move abroad in the future.

There is something very Alice in Wonderland about this Statement, in that it avoids mentioning the Galileo programme. Also, of course, it avoids mentioning Horizon. There is also something rather Alice in Wonderland about the naive enthusiasm for President Trump’s promises for trade, because they have already proved a rather uncertain basis on which to predict the future. My first question to the Minister is: have the Government now received assurances from the EU that we will be able to continue in Galileo? By that—this is a key point—I mean: will we be able to be awarded contracts under the Galileo programme as well as to undertake research as part of the scheme? The scheme involves paying in and getting out as part of the research programme. As I understand it, the problem that has been raised in relation to Galileo would have an impact on our right to receive commercial contracts.

Secondly, the amounts of money in the Statement are welcome—of course they are—but this is a very expensive industry. As the noble Lord has just said, the Government have promised relatively small amounts of money here in comparison with the overall figures previously mentioned in terms of investment in the industry. So I should like to press the Minister for more detail about planned future government investment in the industry. How does that £2 billion pan out over the next few years?

Lastly, I live in Wales, and I should have liked to see Wales included in this. North Wales offered a potential site for a spaceport. That was supported by the Welsh Government and could have been a very useful partnership. Once again, the people of Wales are in a position where we have put forward a plan for large-scale investment but it has been rejected. First, it was electrification across south Wales, then it was the tidal lagoon in Swansea and now it is the spaceport. A pattern is developing here, and it is a very depressing one if you come from Wales. Why was Wales not awarded this? Was it considered as a serious contender and, if not, why was that information not given out earlier so that expectations in Wales were not raised?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his generally positive response to the Statement. I hope I can answer most of his points, but I hope he will understand if I offer to write to him in greater detail on further points. I have to say that this is not exactly my specialist subject or one with which I am totally familiar, but I will do the best I can.

Starting with the Space Industry Act 2018, work is ongoing on the secondary legislation that comes out of that. We hope to be in a position to consult in 2019 and get it in force by 2020, so work is taking place.

On the sector deal, obviously there was a little about that in the Statement itself. I hope we can continue to work with the industry on developing it. As the noble Lord knows, sector deals should be a matter for the industry and others and the Government to work together on to see how they can co-operate in doing things. As I made clear in the Statement, we have already had the Prosperity from Space proposal from the sector; we want to build on that and on the areas where we have leadership. As I mentioned in the Statement, we are already pretty good at small satellites. I recently gave the example of a small satellite factory that I visited belonging to an American company, which decided that the place where it wanted to build its small satellites was Glasgow because that area had the right people, the right expertise and all the other things. It is a testament to Scotland and Glasgow that that is why the company wanted to go there. A sector deal should look at our strengths and what we can do.

The noble Lord also asked about the site of the spaceport. In answering him, I hope I can address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. There was interest from a number of areas for vertical sites, just as there was for horizontal sites, and obviously a number of areas will be disappointed because we picked the site in Sutherland. As the noble Lord implied, equatorial sites further south are used for the very heavy lift that is needed for geostationary sites, but the growth in this area seems to be in small satellites. Small satellites at lower orbits typically require polar orbits and I understand that the further north you go the better it is, but scientists will no doubt be able to explain that in terms that the noble Lord will find easier to understand than my brief explanation. As he knows, Sutherland is further north than Wales, and that is one reason why we took that view.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, addressed the issue of Galileo. That has come up in this House on several occasions, and I can only repeat how disappointed we are by the attitude of the European Commission, whose policy on this can only be described—I think by a Member of this House—as “shooting itself in the foot”. It is losing UK money and expertise in an area where we are doing very well indeed; attempting to exclude us from that is a mistake. We have made it clear that we still wish to be part of it. We wish to continue to engage on that basis but unfortunately the Commission’s proposals do not appear to meet our objectives. We have set out our red lines for participation in Galileo; they include full industrial access to all other parts of the programme.

If we are excluded, it is open to the United Kingdom to develop options for a domestic alternative to Galileo. We have a new satellite launch programme to bring launch capabilities into the UK and we have announced the first grants from this programme. The noble Baroness, in what I have to say was not the most positive of responses to the Statement, also queried whether sufficient money was being put into this area. I make it clear to the noble Baroness that there is some £50 million for the spaceflight programme, another £100 million or so invested in the satellite testing facility at Harwell, and £300 million a year through the European Space Agency. There is also the sector deal, which we will be announcing in due course; I hope there will be more positive news in that.

As I said, I shall write if there are other points I need to pick up on in response to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I hope I have answered most of their questions.

Ffos-y-Fran Opencast Coal Mine

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, under the Government of Wales Act 2006, responsibility for planning and environmental protection, including nuisance and hazardous substances, was devolved to the Welsh Assembly Government. If there is a breach of someone’s human rights, that will obviously be affected by that responsibility and will be a matter for the Welsh Government. As such, Her Majesty’s Government have no powers to intervene.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, over 50 years since the Aberfan disaster, the environmental problems associated with the coal industry continue to haunt the people of Wales. In the report that my noble friend mentioned, the rapporteur referred to,

“various layers of government shifting responsibility”.

He also said:

“Ultimately it falls to the UK central government”.


I fully understand and value the importance of devolution but the issue of air quality and overall environmental standards ultimately lies with the UK Government, so what discussions and meetings have been held between the Welsh Government and the UK Government, and at what level?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do not think that I can take the noble Baroness any further. This is a devolved matter. It is a matter for the Welsh Government, who have responded to the special rapporteur’s report.

Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee considers the draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, which were laid before the House on 16 April. The purpose of the draft regulations is to update and replace existing legislation by implementing the requirements set out by the 2015 European package travel directive. It may be helpful to give some background on consumer protection and the importance of consumer rights before I explain the changes in detail.

In this country, we have a long history of delivering high standards and strong protection for consumers. That history extends into our time as a member of the EU, where we have been influential in developing the EU’s consumer protections. Indeed, the current framework reflects UK priorities. But in some areas the UK has chosen to go further, providing additional protection for British consumers. For instance, through the Consumer Rights Act, we regulated for the supply of digital content, ensuring that there are clear rights for people buying things such as movies and music online. As e-commerce continues to grow, those protections give shoppers the peace of mind that they need to make a purchase, which is crucial to our prosperity. Household expenditure accounts for around 60% of the UK’s economy, more than a trillion pounds a year. Package holidays form an important part of households’ expenditure. Each household spends an average of £1,200 a year on package holidays, around one-third of their total spending on recreation and culture.

Our recently published impact assessment shows that the new rules we are proposing will protect an extra 10 million UK package holiday trips, bringing those who mix and match their holidays in line with those who opt for traditional prearranged combinations. Last summer we consulted on the idea of a light-touch approach to implementation of these proposals. We published the Government’s response to the consultation and the impact assessment last month. The EU’s deadline for transposing the requirements of the EU package travel directive into UK law was this January, with a further six months for these requirements to be brought into force. The travel industry is aware that we are copying out the directive, which has been in the public domain since 2015. We recognise the concerns raised that the Government are late in implementing the regulations. Therefore, we have engaged intensively in advance of laying the regulations to help the industry adjust, and will continue to work with businesses on implementation after the regulations come into force.

Package travel regulations have provided protection to travellers for many years, but they were introduced in 1992, and much has changed since then. Technical innovations have opened up new ways of buying and selling holidays. This has provided increased choice and flexibility in the travel market, allowing consumers to mix and match components of a holiday to suit their particular needs However, such rapid change has left new methods of packaging holidays outside the scope of the current regulations. The 2018 package travel regulations will address this gap. We are ensuring that people who book package holidays through travel sites online enjoy the same rights as those who book with a traditional travel agent. The draft regulations will introduce a broader definition of package holidays to capture modern booking models.

The regulations will also introduce a new concept of linked travel arrangements, or LTAs. These provide some level of protection for looser combinations of travel services than exist in a package holiday, so they have fewer requirements. We are also making it a requirement that package travellers are given clearer information on what they are agreeing to and what their rights are. In addition, we have strengthened the insolvency protection so that consumers can get their money back or be returned home if the company that arranged a package goes bust.

The United Kingdom is required to designate central contact points to supervise UK-established package organisers that are selling into other EU member states. After careful consideration, we have agreed that from July the Civil Aviation Authority will take on that role. With regard to the enforcement of the regulations, the arrangements will be as before, with the responsibilities being taken on by either the Civil Aviation Authority or trading standards.

The department’s impact assessment, which was published alongside the regulations, estimates a net cost to business of around £100 million a year. However, these changes will level the regulatory environment for all businesses selling travel packages. Businesses which have been providing packages not previously covered will now be subject to the full range of protections under the 2018 package travel regulations, including the organiser taking on liability for all the services provided under the contract and providing cover against insolvency.

All these measures will help to ensure that on the day we leave the EU we will maintain our high standards of consumer protection, delivering the stability and continuity that consumers need. It is also our objective to have effective protection in place for consumers purchasing goods and services cross-border in the future. The way that consumer protection will apply when buying across borders is still a matter for negotiation, but we are determined to co-operate closely with our EU partners on matters of consumer protection.

The regulations will enhance protections for consumers when buying package holidays either through the traditional method or online, and they have been welcomed as a positive step by the travel industry. Throughout the consultation process and the development of policy, we have sought to strike a balance between increased protection for consumers and minimised burdens on businesses. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, this updating of the 1992 legislation is welcome, as things have undoubtedly moved on a great deal since then. We now use computers and we travel a great deal more, particularly taking short breaks. The Minister has outlined how important holidays are to the UK public, so I welcome the fact that the definition of a package is to be expanded. Of course, we were prompted to do this by an EU directive, and we have only until 1 July to deal with it. The impact assessment makes it clear that these regulations—and the Minister said as much just now—do not go beyond EU requirements; rather, the EU directive has in effect been simply copied over.

When we discussed this issue last year, in the wake of the Monarch Airlines insolvency, the Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made it a point of great pride that we in the UK had the first laws to protect the purchasers of package holidays and that our laws go beyond the protections available in other countries. Given that, my first question is whether this is a conscious change of policy by the Government in terms of consumer law. The Monarch situation revealed again the differing levels of protection available to travellers, depending on how they purchase their holiday and the unfairness that existed between different sorts of purchase. It demonstrated that nowadays relatively few people buy traditional packages for their holidays, although I read recently that declining public economic confidence has started to reverse that trend. People are now looking for more security and are therefore more likely to buy a package. So it is to be welcomed that these regulations are specifically designed to cover other sorts of arrangements.

Just when I thought I had got my head around linked travel arrangements and what they mean, I find that there are two other categories as well. When we discussed this last year, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made it clear that the idea of a linked travel arrangement was still in the process of being divined. Looking at the categories, I see that there are prearranged packages, which is the traditional arrangement we are all used to, and dynamic packages, which have the features of a package but allow the consumer to pick and mix, to customise the content of their package, buying from one trader. As a further option, travellers can put together the components of a package themselves—one assumes online—based on specific offers from more than one trader. The Explanatory Memorandum says that, although this has elements of from more than one trader, it comes from a single point of sale. My second question to the Minister is this: what does a “single point of sale” mean?

Last night, I happened to be organising a weekend away. I booked my flight on a holiday package website and then up popped the offer of a car hire. But as I dealt with the car hire, I found myself on a separate website, although it had come to me via the first one. I am interested in how this option differs from other options. I quite understand that, if you walk into Trailfinders, you can buy a variety of things from one point of sale. But what is a “single point of sale” when you are dealing with this on the computer?

Apparently, in addition to and separate from the two forms of dynamic package and the simple prearranged package, there are linked travel arrangements. These are the combination of at least two different travel service for the same holiday but, unlike packages, they involve separate selection and payment for each services and separate contracts. Those are created with a trader and, according to the explanation, a linked travel arrangement is created where the,

“trader facilitates either … the selection and payment of two or more services for the same trip, under separate contracts with individual providers, upon a single contact with a point of sale, or … the separate selection and payment of two or more travel services for the same trip through targeted linked booking processes within 24 hours without transferring the travellers’ payment details. Conversely, if the traveller’s payment details, name and email address are transferred then this would count as a package”.

I understand the last sentence, but I got lost halfway through the rest of it.

The point I am making is that this is hugely complex. How is a person purchasing their holiday to know that it is linked by a trader rather than a link inspired by Google? I get extremely worried when I visit a restaurant, for example, and am then asked to rate it. I have not told anyone I am going there—I have simply carried my phone there—yet, somehow, Big Brother knows I have been there. We are all susceptible to having things promoted to us as a result of our choices, using the computer or simply carrying around a phone. This is so complex that publicity will be essential. It will affect a whole new cohort of traders—the Explanatory Memorandum estimates a one-off cost of £620 million to the industry and an annual cost of £48 million. This is a significant new thing for the industry. So my question is: how are the Government planning to raise awareness within the travel industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I will deal with these points when I get on to the different sorts of coverage. I was broadly trying to get across that we were trying to give coverage where there was not coverage in the past. I believe it was the noble Lord who congratulated the Government on being the first to offer these protections, helping to get these regulations and trying to get a degree of protection for the consumer in them.

I will deal with some of the points raised, starting with the common commencement date. My advice is generally that common commencement dates do not apply to the implementation of EU legislation and, in this case, there was no compelling reason to diverge from that position. What we did—I appreciate that we have taken some time over it—was to give a degree of time. I think that has been useful for the industry and this is why we have gone up to the wire, going up to 1 July rather than doing it on 1 January.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also asked about the other regulations coming from the Department for Transport, which will be negative regulations. I remind noble Lords of how seamless the Government are in the way they operate, with no silos between departments. My advice is that the Department for Transport expects to publish its final ATOL regulations and the formal government response to the ATOL conversation in the coming weeks. At the same time, they will be laid before Parliament and come into force in line with the implementation deadline of 1 July, so the noble Lord has time and we will try to make sure that we can meet this.

I return to the questions, largely led by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the single point of sale and the complication of the LTAs. Put simply, it is when the same retail premises, the same website or the same telephone service is used to put those together. I appreciate there is a degree of complexity; that is why we hope to provide guidance that will help to explain the concept as far as possible, making it easy for the consumer so they know that they are buying an LTA. Although LTAs do not offer the same level of protection as a package, traders who facilitate putting together an LTA will be required to inform the traveller that they are not buying a package and therefore will not benefit from the protections associated with that package.

We want to make sure that there is appropriate guidance to assist the industry with that concept and, as a result, to assist the consumer and make sure that they are aware that they are buying an ATOL-protected product. The noble Baroness was correct to stress the importance of the initials ATOL.

[Baroness Randerson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his attempts at explanation. He clearly understands the subject a lot more deeply than I do. The problem with ATOL-protected packages is that they are something that the trader put together. All these other variations, whether it is either sort of dynamic package or a linked travel arrangement, are things you create for yourself. If you choose this car hire rather than that one, you may choose this car hire from the website, but that car hire would be from a different website. Given the average person’s knowledge and understanding of computers and sources of information—most of us are fairly hazy about where we get a lot of information and there will be no label saying, “This is protected”—my concern is how people will know that they are protected and what is the level of protection.

Briefly, because there are so many variations, we are talking about shades of grey. It is now difficult to justify having different levels of compensation depending on whether you create your own package or are given one by a tourism operator.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness is stressing the complexity of what has come into existence over the years. Earlier, she stressed the need to ensure that the industry was properly informed, but she went on to say that it was important that we ensure that the consumer—I always stressed the importance of the consumer—is also protected. What it makes even clearer is that we in the department must ensure that we provide the appropriate protection and compliance. That is why we want to work with the industry and regulators to help them understand all the changes being introduced, develop some guidance and ensure compliance. We will also be working with Citizens Advice to ensure that the guidance helps. I hope that, as a result, we can ensure that consumers are fully aware of what protection they have.

I appreciate that I probably have not got this out as clearly as I should like to all three noble Lords who have spoken, and I will probably end up writing a letter setting it out in some detail—I see from nods that that would be popular and appreciated.

I end by dealing with the noble Baroness’s final point. She asked about the policy change and why, having been the leader in this, we were going only as far as the current directive suggests. We have always been the leader when it comes to the protection of holidaymakers. I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Snape, said at the beginning. Obviously, we will continue to do that whether we are inside or outside the EU but, at the moment, it is vital that we bring the directive into force. That is what we are obliged to do by 1 July.

As the noble Baroness is fully aware, thereafter, it will be open for us to go further, should we wish. The United Kingdom recognises that there is a need at this stage to introduce that stronger consumer protection to address the gap that has been identified and it is important that we implement those changes at this stage irrespective of where we are with our exit from the EU.

The directive is the maximum harmonisation, so there is limited scope at this stage to go beyond it. As I said, I hope to write to noble Lords to set out some of this with slightly greater clarity to make clear what we are doing. I accept that the arrangements are complex, but life is more complex than it used to be and how we buy holiday packages certainly is. I think it is a great deal more convenient and a great improvement, but it means that protections have to be devised in a different way.

I again thank the noble Lord for his welcome for our Explanatory Memorandum—it is very rare that we get such praise, so when we get it, I always like to thank people for it. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Industrial Strategy

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, when I heard that we were to have an industrial strategy, I very much welcomed the news because I felt that it built on foundations laid during the coalition, not least by Vince Cable in his work at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and because industrial strategies—for example, the one produced by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—have a good name among business. It was a hint of long-termism in the Government’s view at a time when inevitably, because of the Brexit challenges, the Government were taken up with fighting day-to-day issues.

However, when I came to read the Industrial Strategy, although it was very thorough in the number of words used to cover it, I felt that it lacked that sense of purpose and unique commitment that Governments must have if a strategy is to be workable in practice—if it is to turn out to be more than, yes, another document.

The Minister referred in his introduction to the Government’s commitment to new transport technology and to transport and future technology in general, but I am firmly of the view that if we are to heal our broken economy, we need, first, to tackle the problems of today. I make no apology for concentrating in my speech on transport and transport technology, because if we do not get transport infrastructure right, the rest will not follow.

When I travel abroad, I get an immediate impression when I arrive back on these shores of the intense traffic congestion, outdated infrastructure and sheer unreliability of travelling long distances in the UK, whether by road or rail. My sense chimes with that of other people who have talked to me about this issue—the contrast between Britain and neighbouring countries in the stage we are at in solving these problems. All this fundamentally undermines our economy. To put it right, there are no quick fixes: it requires long-term investment and farsighted political commitment.

We could argue that we would not be in this Brexit mess if successive Governments had not paid too little attention to areas outside the south-east of England. That lack of attention has gone on for many decades. When you analyse the anti-EU vote of the year before last, you see that the heaviest vote to leave the EU was in those areas where the economy had declined furthest and where people were poorest. That is fundamentally linked with the issue of transport infrastructure. Putting this right depends to a large extent on improving those transport links. Tackling economic imbalances and driving growth more evenly across the whole country will not be simple, and I see nothing in the Government’s industrial strategy to convince me that they accept the radical challenge that they face or the amount of money that it will cost to fix it. It is important to remember that our transport infrastructure has relied over many decades on EU regeneration funding. It is important that the Government urgently reassure local authorities and businesses that there will be a firm and reliable replacement for that funding, and how it will be provided.

I would argue that there is a need for a number of things. First, we need close working relationships with local authorities, which have too often been seen by the Government almost as competitors, with a lack of trust. They obviously hold a key role in terms of planning and infrastructure development. The issue of devolution, which I welcomed strongly, has been linked by the Government to the existence of mayoral authorities. I have never understood why elected mayors are regarded as the key to all political problems and why other authorities cannot be treated on a par. There is a key role on these issues for universities and, of course, business. The Government have to develop real and trusted partnerships with universities as a source of inspiration and research that provides skills for the future and a real partnership with business.

Then, of course, there is the unsolved problem of how to deal with the free movement of people in the future, on which our economy has relied for hundreds of years. The Local Government Association calculated that by 2024 we will have 4 million too few highly skilled workers in comparison with our needs. That is equivalent to affecting 4% of economic growth. That skills gap must be dealt with in one way or another. I welcome the Government’s commitment to increasing the national productivity investment fund to £31 billion, but I fear that even that will not be adequate. I welcome the Government’s commitment to new technologies in transport as I am an enthusiast for new technologies. I welcome their comments on developing electric vehicles and their take-up, but I looked in vain for the clarity that we need on the long-term issues in relation to this. For example, how will the recharging of electric vehicles be provided in a way that works within the market? It is one thing to say that all local authorities will set up charging points but another to ensure that they are maintained properly. The devil is in the detail.

I fear that if too much funding is going into local infrastructure projects that are reliant on short-term competitive funding, we will not get certainty for the future of transport investment. In England, 97% of roads are classified as local roads, so the Government deal with a very small percentage of the total. Local roads suffer from terrible congestion as much as the long-distance links.

There is a massive maintenance backlog on our roads in general, but it amounts to £12 billion worth on our local roads. We need a much more coherent, co-ordinated and cohesive approach to maintaining and developing our roads. There is, of course, an urgent need for investment in public transport infrastructure to reduce air pollution. The Liberal Democrats always prefer rail and road public transport to be developed rather than private transport because of air pollution. However, the Government have not yet produced any adequate detailed plans on how to tackle the air pollution problems.

As a Liberal Democrat, I looked for something very ambitious in the Secretary of State’s railways strategy; instead, I saw a miserable lack of ambition. The decision to abandon the electrification of the Great Western line beyond Cardiff and the trans-Pennine line sends the wrong message if we are to solve the problem of overcrowded railways. Last week’s 3.4% increase in rail fares did not send out the message that the Government are committed to improving the country’s transport and linking up our cities. We need HS2 but it should not soak up all the investment; it should be just one part of the jigsaw. We need a much more ambitious approach to bus services. There is a dwindling number of bus services, especially in rural areas, which leads to increased congestion. There is the danger that the Government’s announcement on clean air zones might drive buses off the road as local authorities choose to impose much higher standards on buses than on cars in this respect. However, buses are the solution to the transport problem.

Finally, the challenge the Government face is that the industrial strategy, if it is to work, needs to face up to the fact that after Brexit we will need more than fine ambitions. We need to look at the reality—namely, we cannot lead the world in new technologies by tinkering at the edges and spraying around a handful of pilot projects, sprinkled with a little seed corn money. We cannot be a world leader in this field simply by constantly claiming that we are already, as we hear so often from this Government. We cannot be a world leader by cutting ourselves off from our main market within the EU and discouraging the skills and the immigrants who bring them, on whom we have relied for so long. I do not see in this industrial strategy the answers to those serious challenges that our country faces at this time.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am trying hard to be positive, so I start by welcoming the Bill on autonomous vehicles. However, I want to point out that across the world this is already a very crowded research field, with the US, for example, well ahead of us. What manufacturers want above all is easy access to sell their technology to EU countries, access to highly skilled employees in a flexible market and to co-operate across borders. It is called the single market. I hope this Bill is more ambitious than its predecessor, which was all about the insurance regime for automated vehicles. That is a necessary detail but unlikely to spark a revolution.

In the same Bill there are facilities for electric vehicles, which offer the Government a lifeline in the mess they are in on air quality. I agree with their proposals in the Bill, and I should declare an interest as the owner of an electric vehicle. However, the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough on this issue. As my noble friend Lady Featherstone pointed out, we need a much more comprehensive approach to air quality, and electric vehicles are just one piece of the jigsaw.

The space industry Bill is also welcome but the industry itself is jeopardised by Brexit. Restrictions on the movement of scientists and engineers, increased bureaucracy in the supply chain and the danger of being frozen out of EU space contracts are already taking their toll. I will give noble Lords an example: a new clause in the contracts for the last phase of the Galileo satellite navigation system specifies that the contract will become void if the supplier is no longer based in the EU. British companies are already talking of moving abroad.

I welcome, too, the commitment to phase 2A of HS2, but where oh where is Crossrail 2 in this Speech? I noticed that it was dropped from the Tory manifesto. I hoped it might have been overlooked in haste, but clearly this is definite government policy. This is a vital infrastructure project if London and the south-east are to be able to combat the Brexit attacks on our economy. From these Benches, we will continue to press for a government commitment on this.

Missing too from the gracious Speech were drones. I say to the Government, with all seriousness, that they seem frozen into total inactivity on this. They should have learned from the Grenfell Tower tragedy that it is worth while paying heed to warnings. Week after week there are potential incidents on this. At some point something bad will happen.

Another serious omission is a review of the franchise system of our railways. It is time the Government committed to a radical overhaul of the franchise system. Southern Rail is simply an extreme example of the problems with the current system. It is time to put passengers first. The Tory manifesto, like the Liberal Democrats’, committed to a rail ombudsman, but there is nothing in the gracious Speech on this. As we leave the EU we have to protect rail and air passengers’ rights. An ombudsman will be the first step. Above all, we need an ambitious programme of investment in our railways. The gracious Speech is totally silent on any commitment to big new infrastructure projects beyond HS2.

Intertwined with this are the Brexit challenges that the transport industry faces. That industry has a sizeable reliance on the EU. A big chunk of it—Eurotunnel, the ferries, many HGV operators—exists solely to service travel and trade with Europe. It is not a matter of adapting to leaving the EU. If trade ceases to continue at the same or a very significant level, those transport industries will wither or even cease to exist.

We were told that this was a pruned back Queen’s Speech, which, beyond Brexit, aimed to be uncontroversial. I argue that what was controversial was what was omitted. It was a Speech that lacked vision and ambition at a time when our country more than ever before needs a visionary and ambitious Government.