International Road Transport Permits (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, buried in these bureaucratic-sounding regulations before us today is what really amounts to a time bomb for the haulage industry.

I shall start by talking about the international road transport permits. These regulations were subject to a report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As the Minister explained, the regulations are required as part of preparations for a no-deal scenario. I think I am safe in saying that, when we discussed the Bill in Committee—or Act as it now is—we did not envisage that we would still be expecting no deal to be a real possibility come November this year.

The stark statistics are that there are likely to be 80,000 applicants for 1,224 ECMT permits. Even with the ingenious DfT solution of dividing them up into monthly permits, they would cater for only 5% of the needs of UK hauliers. Needless to say, monthly permits would be massively bureaucratic—hugely expensive to the Government, but hugely expensive in particular to the haulage industry. I should explain that ECMT permits are intended for our hauliers who go beyond the EU. That is why the numbers are so small.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn the attention of the House to these draft regulations because,

“they may imperfectly achieve their policy objectives”.

That is a masterful understatement.

If any noble Lord is not yet persuaded of the devastating impact that Brexit uncertainty is having on the haulage industry, or not yet persuaded of the disaster that would unfold if there is no deal or we do not get a deal that mirrors what happens now, I would draw their attention to the evidence given last Thursday to the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee, of which I am a member. We took evidence from the haulage industry, and I beg noble Lords to read that evidence. I will give you just a brief flavour of it.

James Hookham, from the Freight Transport Association, said that plans being prepared by the Government,

“would probably not make a significant difference to the virtual collapse of trade across the channel in the event of a no-deal”,

scenario. The Road Haulage Association was represented by Duncan Buchanan. He said that no one within the industry, either in Britain or in the EU, is prepared for what is to come, and that without a transition period, “there will be chaos”. I recommend that the Minister, in particular, reads that evidence. It was very powerful. It was emotional to hear it. Most passionate of all was the owner of an SME who trades regularly across the channel. He said that he could not see how his company could survive in the following months.

The regulations create a framework for the granting of future permits, for a system currently covered by a single Community licence. As the Minister has made clear, there is a great hurry on this because permits will have to be issued this month for them to take effect on 1 January. If I may point out the blindingly obvious, this is far too late. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made clear, the timescale is ridiculously tight.

We discussed all this in Committee on the Bill in July. It is far too late for the DfT to be bringing forward such regulations at this stage while at the same time issuing plans with a huge gap in them. We have been waiting for detail about how the permits will be allocated, and that is the yawning hole at the heart of this. It is obvious that if we have to fall back on the ECMT permits, the vast majority of hauliers will not get one. Exactly what will the Government do to help the 95% of the industry that do not get a permit?

The regulations set out the broadest, vaguest of criteria. They refer to emissions. Exactly what will the rules be on emissions? If you have an older truck, is there any point in applying for a permit? We are also told that it will depend on the goods to be carried. Does that mean that only vehicles carrying staple, vital products will get permits? We are also told that frequency of use will be one of the criteria. Does that mean that only the big companies will get a permit, or does it refer to some other aspect that I have not yet thought of? Then there is the dreaded “random selection”—the government lottery for haulage—and, famously, “any other matters to be considered appropriate”. What else might the Government be thinking of taking into account? The big question is: when will the Government make up their mind on the details of the criteria? How will we be told about them? Above all, how will the haulage industry come to know them? Where and when will they be published?

Hauliers are being asked this month to drop an application into a black hole. When will the Government provide publicity to fill that black hole? Apparently, the DVSA is devising an IT system. Can the Minister update us on that? Is it ready? As this is the month when people will apply, is the IT system up and running?

The Government state that they expect to reach a bilateral agreement with the Republic of Ireland. How are discussions on that going? Are the Government still confident of that?

Then we come to costs, which are £10 per application for an ECMT licence and an issue fee of £123 per year. That does not square with the costs cited in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 12.1 states that the annual cost to business and voluntary bodies is £163,000 with a £13,000 familiarisation cost. How were those figures reached? The industry includes 80,000 hauliers.

The Government expect to make bilateral agreements with the EU 27, but that will leave—as they clearly fear, hence the monthly ECMT permits—a time gap. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are developing plans for that time gap while the discussions are going on?

Finally, ECMT permits are intended for use in 43 countries, many of which are well beyond the EU. There are hauliers who make their living by transporting goods to those countries. They currently use ECMT permits; they never have a problem getting them because not many hauliers are making that sort of journey. However, they are going to be in stiff competition if EU-designated hauliers are going to be using the permits as well. What are the Government doing to guarantee an income and a livelihood for those hauliers who rely on ECMT permits?

I turn to the Trailer Registration Regulations, which are also part of the Brexit preparations. The Government estimate that, by next March, 80,000 trailer users will be required to register their trailers for international use for the first time. Most, but not all, of these are commercial operators. In contrast with the previous SI, there are very precise details here on the required size, placing and visibility of the registration plate. It is complex: you are going to need two registration plates—one for the trailer, one for the vehicle—you need to register your trailer, show relevant documents when you go to get your plate, and so on. The big question is the level of awareness across the very diverse haulage industry, and beyond, that will be affected by these regulations. There may not be many non-commercial trailers in this size category but, as the Government state, there are some. What have the Government already done to make trailer owners aware of what is coming? What are they planning to do, how and when?

In Committee, I raised the issue of the existing registration scheme run by the National Caravan Council. There is a real danger of confusion here, if the Government do not make their explanations crystal clear. Trailer owners who are already registered with the NCC could think that they do not have to register a second time. What discussions have the Government had with the NCC on the integration of these schemes and on making it absolutely clear that trailer users and owners will be required to register again?

On the road safety SI, I request an explanation on the territorial application, which is an issue I have raised before. It clearly says that it applies to Great Britain—hence it does not apply to Northern Ireland; that is clear—but why is Scotland picked out and Wales not mentioned? I draw attention to the fact that the Haulage Act applies to Northern Ireland, so there is going to be some confusion about the territorial application. I am sure that there is a technical tradition as to why Wales is not mentioned, but I wish the Government would abandon that as it is very confusing. This is becoming a serious issue because we have an avalanche of new legislation falling on the haulage industry and people wishing to travel, for whatever reason, from one country to another. Small businesses are trying to keep abreast of the industry. They may not belong to one of the big representative organisations that do a very good job of alerting their members. It makes it very confusing for them if it is not absolutely clear what applies in which bit of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

Can the Minister explain how small businesses are going to be taken into account according to those criteria? You could be a small business doing 100% of your business with the EU but have only one lorry. You are therefore going to be at a huge disadvantage in the numbers game, compared to big companies. A small business could well go to the wall as a result.

[Lord Berkeley]

May I ask a question supplementary to that? If the criterion is going to be the greatest economic benefit, how can the Government identify something vital for a small business, as the noble Baroness suggested—25 tonnes of oranges, or the parts for a major car manufacturer who says, “If I do not get the parts today, I am going to close the whole thing down”—when we are only going to get a quarter or so of the permits we need at the moment? It seems there is going to be chaos either way. Does the Minister have a solution?

Railways: Fares

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Randerson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to modernise rail fares.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are taking steps to modernise rail fares, including making smart ticketing available for most journeys by the end of this year and requiring alternative, more flexible ticket products to be offered to part-time commuters through recent franchise competitions. We also welcome the industry’s plans to roll out the 26-30 railcard, while the rail review’s recommendations will support the delivery of a railway that is able to offer good-value fares for passengers while keeping costs down for taxpayers.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome that progress so far but we are told that in the Budget there is to be £30 billion for roads, while there is no hint of relief for beleaguered train passengers. Does the Minister agree that the Government should abandon the RPI-related hike in regulated fares, which comes as an unwelcome annual new year gift, and maintain fares—at least until the efficiency of the railway improves—by freezing them at their current level? The Chancellor is apparently holding fuel duty for the ninth successive year. If he can freeze fuel duty, surely he can freeze rail fares.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I certainly do not want to predict what my right honourable friend will say in the Budget shortly but we are well aware that rail fares take a large part of people’s income. That is why we are capping fares in line with RPI for the sixth year running. We want to see fares linked with CPI in future but we do not think it is fair to ask people who do not use trains to pay more than those who do. Taxpayers already subsidise the network by more than £4 billion a year, meaning that 54% of our transport budget is spent on the 2% of journeys that the railway accounts for.

Civil Aviation (Insurance) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s introduction of these regulations. I imagine it is the first of a very large number of statutory instruments—and it just covers insurance. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, there is the whole question of EASA, which we will come to another day.

I have a few questions about the insurance cover itself. The Minister said that it covers the insurance requirements for air travel in the UK. Does that cover airlines registered in the UK? Does it cover airlines registered in the EU which are flying to or from the UK? Does it cover airlines registered in third countries which are coming into the UK and going on somewhere else or stopping here? Is there any requirement under these regulations for an airline registered in the UK to demonstrate that it has insurance outside the borders of the UK, specifically in the EU? I am sure that airlines do not think, “We just want to be insured in this country, we do not care what happens when we cross the frontier”, but it would be nice to have some comfort on that. Does the Minister expect the EU to want to know whether all these insurances that we have just talked about are valid in the UK before it will allow planes to arrive in its own airports from the UK? There is a large number of different scenarios here, leaving aside the fact that London to Dublin is the most traffic-heavy air route into and out of this country and Dublin will still be in the EU and apparently we will not be.

I would be grateful if the Minister could address those questions and give us some idea of what other SIs will be coming to cover all the other things that are required to enable continuity of flying after 29 March. I gather that either the Minister or her Secretary of State was given a bit of a telling-off by Mr Barnier for trying to prejudge the Brexit negotiations by going round every other member state and trying to get quiet deals with each one. I am sure she had a great time going round all those places but I do not know what has happened with this. I look forward to her comments.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the airline industry in this country is intensely competitive. It is a commercial environment where there is a real danger that airlines seeking to reduce costs will cut their insurance to the minimum in order to do so. It is obvious from this SI that freeing ourselves from EU standards means that we could allow airlines to have a lower level of insurance. The Minister read out an impressive but rather grim list of the risks that airlines face. Obviously those risks are also faced by their passengers and therefore I would be grateful if she could give some more detail about what restrictions will be put on airlines that are registered in Britain: how low can they go as regards their insurance cover?

It is obvious that the Government are anticipating a reduction because paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum makes it absolutely clear that this legislation will free airlines in the UK to take up lower levels of insurance cover than those required in the EU. It gives the example of “non-commercial operations”. As an aside, I would like to ask the Minister if she could define what the Government mean by that phrase. What sort of operations will need to have or will be allowed to have a lower level of cover? There is no point in freeing yourself up from EU controls if you are not going to allow variations from the standards that the EU has set. Will there be any guarantees of a minimum level of insurance cover or will we have some sort of free-for-all as a result of this? Air passengers will be concerned that there should always be an adequate level of cover.

I reiterate the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: exactly how will this work? I have been trying to envisage the process. Thank goodness that several of our airlines have decided that they will neutralise some of the risks of Brexit and life after Brexit by registering in other countries. That covers their risks, which is a very good thing for them to have done. However, airlines are often based in more than one country. They may have their headquarters in one country but have most of their aircraft based in another one. Of course they fly between countries, so who will set the level of insurance that is required on each occasion? Will it depend on their country of origin, the flight that day, or will it depend on where the airline’s headquarters are based? If our UK-based planes fly from the UK to an EU country, will they not have the right to demand that those planes have an EU level of cover, not the reduced cover that the Government seem to envisage would be possible?

Finally, I put a rather prosaic point to the Minister. Paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The territorial application of this instrument includes Scotland and Northern Ireland”.


What has happened to Wales, which has more than one airport? Can I ask for an assurance that the Scottish Government—sadly I cannot ask about Northern Ireland at this moment—have expressed their agreement to the concepts behind this SI and that the Welsh Government have done so as well, particularly since they do not seem to have been mentioned?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I also thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the regulations before us. Perhaps I may pursue the point that has been made about paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to clarify what it means—or at least to establish that what I think it means is correct. It states:

“Article 6 sets out levels of insurance in respect of liability for passengers, baggage and cargo. Under Article 6(1), the minimum insurance cover for liability in respect of passengers is set at 250,000 SDRs per passenger”.


Can I take it that, as far as these regulations are concerned, there is no change and that the minimum insurance cover which applies at the moment will continue to be applied in the future and not be reduced? The memorandum continues:

“For non-commercial operations by aircraft with a MTOM of 2,700kg or less, there is an option for Member States to set a lower level of minimum insurance cover”—


I take it that that is the present situation with us being within the EU and that we already have the option because the memorandum says—

“which the United Kingdom has chosen to exercise. To ensure that the flexibility provided for in Article 6(1) is retained, Article 6(1) is amended to include a provision for the Secretary of State, by regulations, to set a lower level of minimum insurance cover in respect of non-commercial operations by aircraft with a MTOM of 2,700kg”.

Does the Secretary of State intend to go to a lower level of minimum insurance requirement than we have already exercised under what I understand is provided for under the existing arrangements? It is clear from looking at it that the Secretary of State could take the first opportunity to reduce it even further. What are the advantages of having the lower level of minimum insurance cover that the Secretary of State may set by regulations? To whose advantage is it? Is it safer to have a lower level of minimum insurance cover? It would be helpful to know what the advantages are and whether the Secretary of State intends to lower the level even further than I presume we have already reached.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

We signed up to the international treaties as a member state—as the UK—so we will not need to rejoin them. Obviously, EASA is a separate group of which we are a member as part of our membership of the EU, but we have signed up to the Montreal convention, for example.

Regarding the member states negotiations mentioned by noble Lords, sadly I have not been on a Europe-wide trip negotiating bilaterally with member states. We are working closely with the Commission on agreeing a liberal deal, and that kind of multilateral level agreement is our primary objective. We want to be as ready as we can be for when we leave the European Union, and so the noble Lord was quite right to point out that we have approached member states, but our preference would definately be a multilateral deal on that.

Turning to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, regarding the minimum level required and how low we could go. Just to be clear, it is not about reducing cover in any way. Article 7 sets out the minimum insurance for special drawing rights and that is carried across, so we will still have that same minimum level. I can assure all noble Lords that the amendments to regulations will be made only in response to an international treaty change.

[Baroness Randerson]

Can I ask for a little more clarification on that because the Minister said in a previous answer that these regulations are not changing the prescribed level of insurance in any way. Yet by freeing ourselves from the EU prescribed level, is it not up to us if we wish to change the level? I am happy to accept the Minister’s assertion that the Government have no plans to do that, but would these regulations enable the Government to change the prescribed level if they wished to in the future?

[Baroness Sugg]

I think with all the SIs we are doing, we are literally transcribing EU law into UK law and treating it the same way, as the UK, as we would as a member of the EU. I think any change of policy in the future is not going to be part of these SIs, it would be done as a separate policy decision and debated in the normal way in both Houses. All these SIs are specifically correcting deficiencies which will exist after the withdrawal Act to ensure we have the correct regulatory frameworks. They are not changing; any changes to the minimum requirements would be done if and only if there is a change to international treaties. Some of these SIs do have executive functions which are being carried across; that is why we are giving the reassurance that any time an executive function is used, it will be in the affirmative way.

I will say more about the minimum insurance cover as several noble Lords have mentioned it. Article 6.1 gives member states the power to set a level of minimum insurance cover in respect of the liabilities for passengers, baggage and cargo, and that is lower than 250,000 special drawing rights per passenger for non-commercial aircraft with a maximum take-off mass of 2,700 kilograms or less. In answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, non-commercial just means that no money has changed hands for the flight. That applies primarily to light and experimental aircraft, and cover must be at least 100,000 SDRs per passenger. The UK has exercised that power, as have other member states, and set the lower minimum of 100,000 SDRs within the Civil Aviation (Insurance) Regulations. This SI does not give us an option to set it lower—not that we would want to—it just carries across the minimum level. I hope I have assured noble Lords that this is not an attempt to change that in any way. We have no intention of doing so.

In answer to questions on airspace, this is not dealt with in the same way as an air services agreement; it is an International Air Services Transit Agreement which accompanies the Chicago Convention. Almost all EU member states are separate signatories to an IASTA, meaning they allow overflights and will continue to do so whether or not we are a member of the EU. On the devolved Administrations, obviously aviation is primarily a reserved matter and civil aviation insurance is fully reserved in respect of all three devolved Administrations, but of course we are continuing to engage with them on all aviation matters.

There were a couple of questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I think the last exceptional failure of the insurance market was in response to 9/11. We are working closely with passenger representatives throughout the development of our position on EU exit and aviation in preparing these SIs.

Department for Transport (Fees) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for outlining these regulations with such brevity and clarity. I have a couple of questions, though. As she said, they cover international agreements, driving licences, vehicle registration, public service vehicle operation and licences to operate goods vehicles. I believe we have added licences for trailer operation, or something, which we discussed in some legislation—I cannot remember its name now—a few months ago.

The Minister mentioned non-UK drivers. Does this change mean that the charges are going to go up? Did the European Union previously have any control or oversight or a role in setting these charges? It is always very easy to say that the costs of doing it are going up. There may have been some control or advice from Brussels as to how these things should be assessed and charged.

Lastly, the noble Baroness mentioned that there might be some changes to the licences of non-UK drivers. The impression I get is that licences from other member states will no longer be valid in this country. How do drivers get new licences and are they going to be charged a rate seen by most people to be reasonable—or is it going to be one of these Home Office ones that make you pay £500 to try to dissuade you from coming? I hope it is the former and not the latter. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear explanation. I believe this is the first in a very long line of statutory instruments on transport issues that are directly related to Brexit. I want to express my regret that the time and effort of the Department for Transport is being mopped up in this way when we face so many transport challenges. We would considerably appreciate its efforts being put to another use.

I want to ask a couple of questions that are not unlike those from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I want to start with the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 4.1 says:

“The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom”.


Then it says that,

“the territorial application is either the United Kingdom, or Great Britain”.

I am concerned about whether the devolved Administrations have been properly and fully consulted. These SIs are really going to annoy and upset the Scottish Government in particular. Therefore, it is particularly important that the Government maintain clear and detailed discussions with them on these things.

In the policy background section in the Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 7.4 says that fees orders lay out the costs that the Government can take into account when setting fees. Paragraph 7.5 summarises the sorts of things that can be taken into account. They are very logical: driver licensing, vehicle registration, international permits and so on. Paragraph 7.9 then makes it clear that the Department for Transport is responsible for this legislation. It contends that these changes are “minor” and simply recognise Brexit. It says that, as a result:

“Stakeholders will not be impacted”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

This SI refers to goods vehicle licensing in the UK—or England, Great Britain, whatever—and as about 80% of the trucks crossing the channel are now driven by Romanians or Bulgarians or people from other member states, where the trucks may also be registered, what happens to the licensing of the vehicles from these member states if they come in here? Will they be subject to the same arrangement or is there another arrangement that would require them to be registered? If so, will they have to do that at the frontier and so on? I hope not.

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord has found an ingenious way of adding an extra question and I will pass it on to the Minister.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and content of the SI, which we will not oppose. In the light of concerns that have been expressed about the possible effect on fees in future and other possible impacts, will the Minister gives us some clarification on the consultation? Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“A consultation is not considered necessary as the amendments are minor and technical in nature and do not impact upon either business or the individual”.


Does that mean that there has been literally no consultation, or have some bodies or organisations been consulted? If so, which organisations or bodies have been consulted about this SI and its contents?

As the Minister said, the regulations amend the Department for Transport’s fees orders covering the road traffic field. Fees orders do not set fees but specify functions and their costs which may be taken into account in setting fees. These regulations amend those orders by removing references to the Secretary of State having functions to carry out to comply with EU obligations or requirements on the basis that we are withdrawing from the European Union. Those functions referred to in the fees orders will no longer be carried out under EU legislation but will continue to be carried out by the Secretary of State under domestic law as provided for by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As the Minister said, the functions currently carried out by the Secretary of State under EU legislation are those relating to international road haulage permits, type approval certification, tachograph calibration centres, international road passenger transport authorisations, driver licensing, vehicle registration, licences to operate public service vehicles and licences to operate goods vehicles.

The SI relates to a situation where we have withdrawn from the European Union. It would appear that it covers a no-deal situation and our intended departure on 29 March next year. What is the position if there is a deal approved by Parliament and that deal entails a transition period with continued membership of the customs union and/or the single market for an unspecified time or other provisions that do not provide for a clean break on 29 March next year? What is the need for this SI in that scenario? We may not in reality have withdrawn from the EU because we would still be bound to accept that some or all of its legislation applies to us. We would not be able to alter it unilaterally and we would also be bound by any subsequent amendments made to that legislation by the European Union pending our full withdrawal.

What then would be the relevance of an SI, such as the one we are now considering, coming into effect on 29 March next year, which asserts in paragraph 2.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“The relevant EU related functions specified by the Fees Order will, after EU exit, no longer be carried out in pursuance of EU legislation”,


when, if there is a deal, these functions could have to be, including to the extent, for a possible period of time unknown, that we would also have to abide by EU legislation that was further amended by the EU without our agreement? Would it not be better, with a decision on a deal apparently close, to withdraw this SI and wait until we know whether there is a deal and, if there is, produce an SI which reflects the reality and terms of that deal? It is, after all, not the fault of this House if the Government are having difficulty adhering to their intended timetable for progress in negotiations with the EU, as appears to be the case. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out what the impact of a deal with a transition period could be on the provisions and relevance of this SI, and whether during the transition period agreements could be reached or arrangements made that could have an impact on the terms and relevance of this SI.

I turn to one other point. The Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act gave the Secretary of State the power to introduce regulations to charge fees for international road transport permits if a new permit scheme is required, as UK-issued Community licences will no longer be valid in the EU if we leave, unless an agreement is reached otherwise. The Government have previously said that any permit fees would only cover the cost of any new scheme and that the detail on fees would be consulted on later in 2018 when the outcome of the negotiations was clearer. Has the consultation started, or has the lack of clarity at the moment over how the negotiations with the EU will end precluded the commencement of the consultation?

Since an issue of concern is that hauliers or taxpayers will incur additional costs if a new scheme is required, does that not underline the importance of continuing with the Community licensing system? Once again, would it not therefore be better to be discussing this SI once the outcome of the negotiations was clearer and the SI itself could reflect that outcome? The SI is not intended to come into force for another five and a half months, yet we are being asked to agree to it now when it is not clear to what extent we will or will not be continuing to follow EU legislation, including any subsequent amendments to the legislation, after the SI is intended to come into effect on 29 March 2019.

HS2: Budget and Costs

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the part that the noble Lord played in HS2. I will certainly pass on his good wishes to the outgoing chairman. This is one of the biggest infrastructure projects that our country has ever seen. Eventually, more than 100 million people are expected to use HS2 trains when the network is fully completed.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, Sir Terry Morgan is the new chair of HS2, following a very efficiently run spell at Crossrail. Could the Minister confirm whether Sir Terry’s remit includes a complete review and reassessment of existing HS2 plans in view of the doubts that are being expressed about the cost envelope?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am sure that the incoming chair will absolutely look at the details of the project very closely. As I said, HS2 is preparing a full business case, which will be the robust and comprehensive assessment of the scheme. That will inform the next phase of the project, when we assess whether it is correct to continue.

Railways: CrossCountry

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the consultation does indeed ask for passenger views around the stops that the noble Lord mentioned, as for other intermediate stops across the country. We want to address overcrowding, which will be done through additional rolling stock but there are other ways to look at that too. Of course passengers have conflicting demands: some will want quick express services and others will want a stopping service to get around locally. The point of the consultation is for passengers to tell us what they want from that service. I certainly do not want to alarm the noble Lord or the people of the north-east. I know how much the services are valued, and of course passenger views will be properly reflected before setting the minimum requirements for the new operator.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the railway in the London area is very congested, in terms both of routes and of the trains themselves, as we all experience on a daily basis. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that CrossCountry routes that bypass London should be not just maintained but strengthened? The idea of reducing CrossCountry services is totally counterproductive. I am sure that she agrees that the Government do not wish to be known as Beeching mark II.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness on that. Part of the problem is the increasing demand from passengers travelling into London on our railways. We want to ensure that the CrossCountry service continues to provide other options for passengers so that they do not have to travel into central London.

Railways: Timetables

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am not sure I recognise that as the reason for the issues in Sheffield. We are investing in the biggest upgrade of the line since it was completed in 1870. We are working closely with Network Rail on the upgrade and we expect to deliver it in 2020, which will improve train times. We are working continually with the train operating company to ensure that the new timetable implementation is delivered successfully.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, 200 services were cancelled by Thameslink and Great Northern yesterday, so the first day of the third version of the timetable was predictably bad, with all the same delays, cancellations and misinformation. It is time to give passengers a stronger voice. Will the Minister agree that all boards must have a passenger representative, and will the Government hold these powerful companies to account, forcing them to pay proper compensation to all passengers, not just those with season tickets?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, sadly we have seen some interruption in the interim timetables delivered on Sunday. However, we are seeing daily improvements and it is worth remembering that, even with the interim timetables, there are 100 more services per day than before. There will be 400 more services per day once we get back up to our planned level. I assure the noble Baroness that we will absolutely hold the train operating companies to account. As well as the independent inquiry, we are looking at a hard review into each of the franchises to ensure that they have behaved appropriately. If they have not, we will certainly take action.

Railways: Train Timetables

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Randerson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on establishing the new train timetables around the country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)]

My Lords, while many of the new timetables have been delivered around the country, that is certainly not the case in all areas. Following the continued disruption faced by GTR and Northern passengers, both operators are introducing an interim timetable designed to provide a more predictable service for passengers. GTR’s interim timetable was published on 6 July and will come into effect on Sunday. Northern’s interim timetable, introduced on 4 June, has already helped to restore stability. Further changes to add in additional Northern services are planned for the end of July.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, misleading claims are made about the eventual benefits of these new timetables. Commuters from Harpenden now have 15 fewer rush-hour trains and fewer carriages. Hitchin used to have 29 rush-hour trains to and from London; that has now halved to 16. They are among the busiest stations on the route and, even when the trains run as scheduled, which is rare, they are now so full that commuters cannot physically squeeze themselves on. Will the Minister ask Thameslink what the good people of Hitchin and Harpenden have done to deserve such an appalling new service?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, with the delivery of the new timetable, we have had to cancel services, and services in Hertfordshire have been particularly badly affected, with consistently poor performance. Once all the services are in place, passengers from Hitchin and Welwyn will be able to take direct services through the Thameslink core to several London stations. I appreciate that that is little comfort for the coming weeks, but from Sunday the interim timetable will improve reliability, prioritise peak-time services and aim to reduce the long gaps in services.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care and tolerance that she has shown during the passage of the Bill, which is considerably improved. It is far from perfect and I greatly regret the fact that we need it, but it is a lot better than it was when it first came to us.

I will say two or three things about the amendments. On Amendment 1, I remain concerned about the concept of a limit on the number of permits. It reflects a very old-fashioned view of trade and commerce. We no longer live in a world where people know what their business practice will be in three or six months’ time, in many cases. There is a limited attempt to refer to,

“an emergency or other special need”,

but I fear, as the Minister implied, that with permits being issued once a year, if you miss your opportunity, you will have to wait for the next year. I accept, however, that this is where Brexit appears to have brought us: back to an attempt at an old style of doing things.

Govia Thameslink

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, on the operational readiness board, the timetable was planned to introduce major changes and rail companies communicated these changes extensively to their passengers. However, the level of disruption caused by the introduction of the timetable was obviously not anticipated. We are working closely with GTR to put this right. One issue was that the operational readiness board did not anticipate the disruption, so the review will cover that.

On the review itself, Professor Stephen Glaister, who is chairing it, is from the independent rail regulator, the ORR. The inquiry will consider why the industry as a whole failed to produce and implement an effective timetable. There are various independent people on that review and they will consider the role of the ORR, train operating companies and, indeed, the Department for Transport.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am interested in why the Government are suddenly so concerned about the appalling service from GTR when Southern, for instance, has been in a state of prolonged crisis for years and passengers have been left to suffer. Can the Minister explain the Government’s sudden change of heart?

Given the information from the operational readiness board, why did the Government not take the sensible step of deferring the new timetables? The Minister said in a Written Answer to me that the Secretary of State had not seen the minutes that warned of this impending chaos. Why was the Secretary of State not informed of the situation? When will the terms of compensation be precisely known?

Turning to electrification, the Government are very coy about the whole issue but we have rumbled the Secretary of State: when he skirts around a subject, it always means bad news. What is the Minister’s reaction to today’s ORR report, which warns that Network Rail has deferred £441 million of renewals this year, adding further to the backlog of work it needs to catch up on in CP6? Why do the Government want to phase out diesel cars while promoting diesel railways?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, on GTR and Southern, obviously there has been awful disruption on Southern in recent years. The franchise was designed to deliver the Thameslink programme and the department has been keeping a close eye on that. However, with the introduction of the new timetable, services have further failed.

On the information provided to the Secretary of State and around the wider timetable changes, I fully acknowledge that the correct information was not given to the Secretary of State. That is why we have set up this inquiry: to ensure that we learn lessons for the future and investigate what went wrong.

On compensation, we are working hard with the train operating companies and Network Rail on the exact details, which will be announced in the coming days.