Transport Levying Bodies (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the draft regulations that we are considering, if approved, would enable Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to collect appropriate levies from its constituent councils to meet the costs of carrying out their transport functions. As only the upper-tier authorities—Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council—have transport functions, the levy will fall solely on these authorities.

The seven constituent councils of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority—the administrative areas of Cambridgeshire County Council, the city councils for Cambridge and Peterborough, and the district councils for East Cambridgeshire, Fenland, Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire—have led a local process to improve their governance arrangements, which culminated in this House and the other place agreeing orders that saw the establishment of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority in March 2017. This order gave effect to the desire of the local authorities in these areas to improve their joint working, including on transport matters.

An order has since been made that provided for a mayor to be elected in May 2017 for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. The elected mayor is the chair of the combined authority.

Combined authorities are designated as levying bodies under the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Under that Act, the Secretary of State is able to make regulations relating to the expenses of combined authorities that are reasonably attributable to the exercise of its functions, including those relating to transport.

The draft regulations before the House would amend the Transport Levying Bodies Regulations 1992 to take account of the creation of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. They have been drafted to reflect the proposed approach of these local areas and have been agreed by the combined authority. The levy could fund any of the transport functions that sit with the combined authority.

The functions of the combined authority are set out in its establishment order, and any subsequent order that confers transport functions will be clearly identified. These include developing a local transport plan, as well as a range of passenger transport-related functions. It will be for the combined authority to decide how to fund these in accordance with the establishment order and any subsequent orders.

The upper-tier authorities—Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council—will need to consider how they fund any levy issued by the combined authority as part of their budget process, whether by council tax, government grants or other sources of revenue. They will need to take into account the impact of council tax levels in their area, including when determining whether any council tax increase is excessive.

The regulations have to establish how any transport levy would be apportioned between the upper-tier authorities if the combined authority could not reach agreement. In the event that they cannot agree, the combined authority will apportion the levy by taking into account previous levels of transport expenditure by those authorities.

The regulations help to facilitate the provision of transport arrangements as part of the combined authority’s wider governance changes. I commend them to the House.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. The regulations come after a period when there has been, not surprisingly, a lot of local discussion and debate about the formation of the combined authority. Having been through a period of change in local council formation in Wales about 20 years ago, I still bear the scars; it is never an easy or happy situation. As I knew that there had been debate about this matter and some discussion about the plans for transport in the area, I took a look at the mayor’s transport delivery plan. There are local concerns about an overemphasis in that plan on Cambridge city and on roads.

I applaud the ambition of the mayor, because his ideas include a Cambridge underground—the Cambridge autonomous metro with underground electric buses. It is ground breaking stuff and a very good idea in many ways, because Cambridge as an historic city with a dense population has a huge traffic problem to solve. However, undergrounds involve tunnelling, which is very expensive. It is therefore not surprising that the amount of money that would be sucked into the Cambridge area has alarmed people in Peterborough, who believe—I think quite rightly, being familiar with Peterborough—that much needs to be done to improve their bus network, such as the introduction of bus lanes and encouragement of ultra-low emission buses, as well as to improve cycling and walking infrastructure and the uptake of rail. Those are much less expensive options.

Then there is a wider picture, because Peterborough and Cambridge are two cities in the midst of a large rural area. I strongly welcome devolution of powers over railways, but, in that wider area, people are campaigning for the reopening of Wisbech station, which was a casualty of the Beeching era, and of the line from there to March. They are isolated communities that desperately need investment. People are also campaigning for the electrification of the Peterborough to Ely and Cambridge line to encourage freight from the east coast ports to the Midlands on to the rail. Of course, there are always demands for better rural bus services, with people emphasising the importance of sustainability and tackling congestion and air quality problems. I am simply trying to set the issues that have been put forward in this debate in the context of these regulations, and I have some questions for the Minister.

First, taking devolution fully into account, infrastructure development is of course an essential part of co-ordinated transport planning. So how does the Department for Transport monitor the way that levying bodies, not just this one but others as well, spend the money they raise? How does the department ensure that transport plans treat the whole area affected by this fairly? How does it ensure that there is co-operation and co-ordination—this is a key point—from one local authority area to another? Because there are certain aspects of transport provision, such as local buses, which are rightly an issue for that area alone, but when you are looking at railways you are almost always linking from one local authority area to another, and the same with road provision. So you have a transport plan from here to somewhere; you cannot just stop it at the border. I am interested in how the Government can ensure that the levy, which is after all a levy on the people of that area, is spent wisely.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I can set the Minister’s mind at rest that we are not going to have a constitutional crisis: this will be one of the thousands of affirmative instruments that will go through without a Division. Nevertheless, I have some mild misgivings.

The draft regulations give authority to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to levy the upper-tier authorities, as far as I can see without constraint. They give this authority to set a levy in respect of transport. I did not know until I heard the speech of the noble Baroness that they were considering digging holes underground. My experience of digging holes underground is that they cost about £250 million per kilometre and they have a dreadful habit of not coming out at anything like the figure you thought they should. Therefore, this levy, if there is overambition, could be a very significant drag on the upper-tier authorities.

I cannot see in the legislation how that is limited. I saw some words about having regard for the ability of the upper-tier authority to pay, but that seemed to be all, so my first question is: are the upper-tier authorities consulted on the level of this levy? There is a general principle that there should be no taxation without representation. There should surely be some process with proper checks and balances in it.

In researching this order, I went back to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Order 2017, which says on page 5, at paragraph 7.13:

“To give effect to the contents of the deal to devolve powers to the proposed Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, the Order confers local authority functions for public transport on the proposed CPCA, to be exercised by the Mayor. It also enables the Mayor to produce and publish a Local Transport Plan for the CPCA area”.


My second question, therefore, is: has the mayor produced a local transport plan? Has he costed it? Has he explained the criteria for how the decisions on expenditure are made? Surely this transport plan should create a budget which the upper-tier authorities are able to have sight of and have some say about whether or not they are getting value for money for their levy.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will not detain the House with a great long speech, but I endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I thank the Minister for her courtesy and the care with which she has dealt with the Bill.

[Baroness Sugg]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their comments and constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th April 2018 Lords Chamber

Essentially, that is what Amendment 1 is drafted to achieve: to set out at the very beginning of the Bill that this is a contingency and that in better circumstances—the optimum circumstances—most of the provisions of the Bill will fall. That would put the whole Bill in context; it would be much more rational; and the measures that the Government would undertake in pursuit of the objectives would be somewhat different from the format provided within the Bill. We would therefore hope that the provisions mentioned within the amendment would be able to fall. That would be, if you like, a preamble to the Bill. I know that English lawyers sometimes do not like preambles, but in terms of public understanding and appreciation in the road haulage industry itself, it would be clearer what the Bill is about. I therefore hope that the Government will accept this amendment or something very like it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to three amendments in this group. I have added my name to Amendment 1, which is a retabling of an amendment put down in Committee by the Labour Party that would put on the face of the Bill that it is the Government’s objective to secure continued participation in the EU’s Community licence arrangements. This is another example of where a perfectly good arrangement currently exists in the EU but we will be leaving that arrangement and undoubtedly, I fear, moving to a less satisfactory situation. These amendments, as a group, are intended to encourage the Government to make the best possible arrangement with the EU for the future and to move to the best possible set of arrangements in the circumstances.

The amendments tabled by the Labour Party will almost certainly also ensure that the powers granted under this legislation will not be applicable if we stay in the EU’s Community licence regime, and that is very similar in principle to the sunset clause that I tabled in Committee. My Amendment 2 carries on this theme, because our argument is that the Bill should be applicable only with its original intended purpose, which is to make provisions for after we leave the EU, and that it should not be used as an opportunity to tidy up existing law. We often hear the phrase “skeletal Bill” but this is a “coat-hanger Bill”. It is possible to put any garment you can think of on this coat-hanger because it is drawn so broadly, and it is very difficult to see where the Government might go with it. Therefore, I believe that it is in everyone’s interests to keep the Bill to its original purpose.

Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, refers to the new permits regime and attempts to ensure that there is agreement in the future between the Government and the EU.

Finally, our Amendment 7 would make it a negotiating objective of the UK Government that there must be reciprocity regarding the number of UK-registered hauliers travelling to the EU and vice versa. This is a key issue. The view of haulage industry leaders is that we have to do all we can to ensure that there is an agreement, because, in their eyes, it is certain that the system proposed here will not work. The Freight Transport Association says that last year 300,000 journeys to the EU were made by British trucks and that 103 permits were issued, as those were all that were needed. If the Government are to adopt the permit system, a massive scaling up will be required to cope with that volume of traffic, but I think it is unrealistic for the Government to believe that they can scale up quickly and satisfactorily to that extent.

There are other issues which the transport associations are very concerned about and which these clauses do not deal with. After Brexit, WTO rules will require a significant increase in the number of checks. However frictionless a system the Government manage to create, ensuring that there are a limited number of checks to be made, WTO rules will kick in and will require checks to be made on a much bigger scale than now.

Simple precautionary measures are bound to be required to deter people intent on cheating the new system. There is also the unlikelihood, in the eyes of those who engage with the system at the moment, that the new computer-based system that will have to be devised by HMRC will be fully functional in the less than three years that we have left before the end of the transition period.

Then, of course, there is the issue of bringing 85,000 businesses up to scratch—that figure is from the NAO report. Currently, those businesses export only to the EU. Therefore, although they are exporting frequently—on a daily basis in many cases—they have never made a customs declaration. These businesses have no processes in place and no departments dedicated to that. If you add to that increased border delays caused by non-tariff aspects of the Bill, such as the end of mutual recognition of standards, there must be every incentive to reach an agreement, because there will be huge impediments to trade.

This Bill deals only with part of these issues. It makes no reference to the mutual recognition of lorry driver qualifications or to a shortage of skilled workers—13% of trucks on British roads are driven by EU drivers. Therefore, we are keen, through these amendments, to encourage the Government in every possible way to ensure that they make an agreement. I fear that we are not in a strong position on this, but the Government have to make every effort. Unless they do so, there is a huge chance that our major haulage companies will move abroad. There is already talk of companies seeking to register abroad in order to trade more easily. None of us wants that to happen.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2, 3 and 7 in this group, Amendment 3 being in my name. Before I do so, I note the comments from the Chief Whip a few minutes ago on what noble Lords are supposed to do during Report stage. I question the second point, which says,

“a member to explain himself in some material point of speech”.

I do not imagine that the Minister will be able to answer that, but I hope that we all explain ourselves.

I support all the points made by my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The noble Baroness said that this is a coat-hanger Bill, and she is probably right, but I suggest that it is a great deal better than nothing. There are many other sectors being debated in the context of Brexit for which there is nothing. We should give the Government a bit of credit for this, albeit that the Bill as it stands is pretty defective in many of the solutions that it comes up with. My conclusion, along with that of the noble Baroness, is that the system will not work anyway.

It is worth mentioning that, although this applies to road haulage, the border checks that we are all concerned about cover a very large number of different issues. Previous speakers have mentioned some of them. The easy one, actually, is customs. If that is done well and the IT system works—there is a big question about that—much of the work can be done in advance and, in theory, there would be no delays at frontiers, provided that it all goes smoothly. We discussed the drivers in Committee and their need for permits for vehicles and trailers and then we get into the interesting bits, which are the responsibility of Defra—plant and animal health and welfare, foot-and-mouth and rabies. You cannot check for those away from the frontier; it has to be done at the frontier. I do not know how many trucks per year would come under that, but they probably all need inspecting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I have Amendment 5 in this group. The noble Baroness has in part answered the issues it is intended to raise, but it is not very clear in the Bill, in which the criteria for granting a permit seem to be entirely an issue of allocation of numbers, in terms of either the number of drivers or the number of vehicles, and what is available for a particular country. The amendment attempts to say to Ministers that there also need to be some qualitative criteria as to whether permits are given.

In the way the noble Baroness described it, the consultation might include that, but I would like that to be a little more explicit. We need to make sure that the operators who apply for and are given permits have reached certain standards of performance in relation to safety and maintenance, and to the employment and training they provide for their drivers and others; in relation to certain financial criteria that enable them to be of good financial repute; and in relation to certain environmental standards, as well as safety standards.

I hope that the consultation will cover all those things. What the Minister has said clearly includes that, but it is slightly odd that the wording of the Bill does not refer at all to regulations. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could even more explicitly reassure me that these issues will be taken into account when criteria are established as to the suitability of operators to receive permits under the new system—if we need a new system.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, to take further the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I note that the Minister said that the Government would seek to maximise the benefits to the UK economy in the way in which permits are distributed—and that needs to be done in a way which seeks to enhance the good repute of the industry and therefore of our country. I was struck by a point put to us in a briefing from Unite, which suggests that permits should be linked to the good repute of the operator; for example, their record on driver infringements should be taken into account, not just to reward good practice but to incentivise further good practice. I raise this issue because I seek an assurance from the Minister that the Government will be prepared to investigate such an approach, which seems a much fairer system than that suggested in Committee, when we talked about first come, first served and some kind of balloting system. There needs to be something to encourage good practice in the industry.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, of course I support my noble friend the Minister’s amendment. On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Lord was Roads Minister many years ago and I was the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on transport. We had a lot of fun together and we made various improvements. The noble Lord will know that to engage in international goods vehicle operations, one needs an international goods vehicle operator’s licence—one can have an international licence or a national licence.

When the noble Lord was Minister, I would try to increase the standard required of all operators—not just international operators but national operators as well. Sometimes he took my suggestions—there was one issue on which we achieved an improvement—but, generally speaking, as happened with most Ministers, the Opposition’s suggestions would be turned down.

However, if we wanted to, we could raise the bar for having an international operator’s licence. The tests already include the need for good repute and financial standing. If an operator gets into trouble with their annual pass rate or the number of prohibitions they pick up on the roads, the traffic commissioner can remove their licence. However, the noble Lord is right: if you want to engage in international operations, you need to operate to a higher standard than national operations—because, let us face it, operators operating on the continent are representing the United Kingdom. So the noble Lord raises a good point, but it is already covered by the fact that, to engage in international operations, you need an international goods vehicle operator’s licence under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, two things above all concern the haulage industry in relation to this aspect of the Bill: the number of permits that will be available, which the Minister has already addressed, and the key issue of the potential cost of those permits. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said, it is, at least in part, about fairness—to give our operators a fair opportunity in competition with those from the rest of Europe. We should not be making it more expensive than we have to.

I raised this issue in Committee. In her response, the Minister made the point that if we made the EU permit free, the Government would just put up the cost of the operator’s licence to cover the cost of it. I can clearly see that point of view, so the amendment in my name is an attempt to balance that issue and shut off that exit for the Government by saying that, overall, the cost has to be proportionate.

What I am really trying to do is to urge the Government to minimise the cost of these permits. It is probably not terrifically significant for the big operators but for the small operators—the people who have just one, two or three lorries going to Europe—it is a very significant aspect of their cost structure, so I ask the Government to give the industry a break and make this as cheap as possible. There is also a symptomatic or symbolic thing in this decision: it has been free in the past, for very logical reasons because the EU has been an extension of our domestic market so people were therefore not charged extra for going there; but, symbolically, they are now to be charged more for the right to travel and transport goods overseas. It is therefore important that we keep that cost to the minimum possible.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, once again the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raises important points and I agree with them. That should be what the Government will negotiate for—equal access, reciprocity, et cetera—and I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will tell us that that is the case. However, once again, I would not like to see the Government tie their hands by agreeing to have the noble Lord’s amendment in the Bill, because it might be necessary to do something that does not quite meet the requirements of his amendment in order to achieve some other desirable outcome. I hope that he will reluctantly accept that point.

As to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I agree with the sentiment, particularly on the need to minimise the costs. I hope that if we did have to have this system, it would be just a technicality that a permit would be issued and the costs could be very low. Whatever we do, it must be on some form of cost-recovery basis where the international haulage industry pays for it, but there is the horrible prospect that, for some reason, the system that we will have to adopt is much more complicated and expensive to administer than the old Community licence system. The noble Baroness’s amendment says that the costs should not exceed that, which I suggest to my noble friend the Minister means it is not wise to accept that amendment. It will otherwise be impossible to recover the costs of operating the system. I entirely agree with the sentiment but I hope that my noble friend the Minister does not accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

Before the noble Earl sits down, I hope he will accept that the wording I used was not that it should not exceed it but that it should not be “disproportionate”.

[Earl Attlee]

I entirely accept the point. The amendment is carefully drafted but it would still have the undesirable effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the situation for the trailer market. It is clear that the provisions in the back half of the Bill, which deals with trailers, are important and welcome. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, at one point I had to be quite familiar with all this, but, thankfully in some ways, I have lost touch with parts of the industry in the interim. Nevertheless, it has been represented to me that the trailer market and the use of trailers is actually quite a complex subject—although a more pejorative word is sometimes used. For example, trailers are shared, hired out, or picked up by a driver for one operator and delivered to another, used for part of the journey and then used by another operator. What I am querying in the text is that the reference to the operator or keeper does not seem to include the part of the trailer market that is effectively hiring out. They are either hiring out for money or hiring out in kind by swapping one trailer for another or for a whole range of different services for trailers. It is a complicated area but it is important that those who hire out vehicles have the same obligations on registration, safety and the offences created by the Bill as do operators who always use their own trailers or operate on simpler, less complicated arrangements.

This is a significant part of the market without which the whole system would not operate, or at least it would be hugely more costly and inconvenient to operate without it. Therefore, those who hire out trailers, on whatever terms, are an important part of the efficiency of the sector. But they, likewise, have responsibilities. The Bill should reflect that they have the same responsibilities for registration and related matters as other operators within the sector. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raises an important issue which did not have much discussion in Committee. It is a complex issue partly because it is possible to stick a registration plate on a trailer but not really know which trailer it is for. It appears to be the same trailer, but it could be a different one, depending on what is pulling it. We need a system to specify who is responsible and who is operating in a rental market for trailers. We should remember that rental trailers range from trailers used to cart excess household rubbish to the tip through to camping trailers for holidays and up to large commercial trailers. It is a big market. We must also take account of the important issue that, at the commercial level of the industry, drivers swap trailers regularly. In order to be fair to the drivers, there needs to be a simple way for them to check that the trailer is properly registered and safe. That is a key issue that we did not address at all in Committee.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I take it that the intention of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is to deal with the commercial HGV trailer market. He said that the issue is complex, and it is certainly that. There is a wide variety of renting, leasing and finance arrangements and they will all have different registration arrangements, so he is right that it is complex. However, it is no more complex than the situation for tractor units or rigid vehicles, which also have complex leasing and rental arrangements. Equally, the situation is no more complicated for a trailer than it is for a goods vehicle. I therefore cannot see why we need to have special consideration in this legislation in the way that the noble Lord suggests.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, suggested that operators would not know which trailer is which. However, we already have the ministry plate which is attached to the trailer along with the goods vehicle test disc. Moreover, there is a chassis number on the trailer and the manufacturer’s plate.

[Baroness Randerson]

For clarity, I was referring to the casual observer rather than the industry insider, or indeed the police or any law enforcement agency that sought to check.

[Earl Attlee]

Yes, my Lords. As I understand it, there will also be a conventional number plate on the trailer. Once it is registered under this legislation, it will have a number plate in the same way as a rigid vehicle.

The noble Baroness touched on smaller trailers for private use. My comments are particularly aimed at the commercial sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I spoke at length in Committee on this matter. I do not intend to do so today. This is a very good compromise arrangement. The Government would ultimately take the decision. We would simply establish a framework on which basis a Government can take the decision. I hope the Government will accept the amendment.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, safety has to be taken extremely seriously in this context. Along with the Minister and, I suspect, most of the people here, I rather wish that there had been no need for this legislation, but since we have it we might as well use it in this situation to draw attention to, and give the Government the opportunity to draw some conclusions on, the issue of safety.

The National Caravan Council believes that the number of accidents connected to caravans and similar trailers are mainly not due to the design or condition of the caravan or trailer itself. Most are caused by bad driving, bad loading or bad hitching of the trailer. Therefore, there is a huge need for public education on this. I very much hope that the Government will use the opportunity of providing the report suggested in the amendment by looking at the need for widespread public education on this.

I do not know whether any noble Lords have witnessed an accident of this nature. I did, driving behind a caravan on a motorway. A small wobble rapidly becomes magnified until it becomes a huge sweep of the caravan. Eventually, it cuts back on itself. That motorway was closed for six hours and very serious injuries were sustained. It was a frightening experience which brought home to me how important it is that driving with a trailer is done moderately. In that case—there may have been other factors—it was clear to me that the driver with the caravan was going much too fast, hence the need for public education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, at Second Reading and in Committee we discussed our intention to consult industry on possible permit arrangements and the trailer registration scheme. Ministers and officials in my department have been engaged with industry throughout the development of the Bill and have held workshops with hauliers and relevant trade associations. We also intend to hold a public consultation on the details of these schemes that will inform the regulations made under this Bill.

Given the importance we place on understanding the impact of regulations on hauliers and trailer users, I now propose to include a requirement to consult in the Bill. The amendment provides that, before making regulations, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as he thinks fit. This wording and this obligation are consistent with other road traffic legislation, such as the Road Traffic Act 1988. I hope that noble Lords will support the inclusion of this clause. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendment. The Minister has made a significant gesture. In my amendment, Amendment 27, which relates to Clause 21, I have specified a number of organisations because I see no harm in having certain key organisations named in the Bill. To choose one organisation at random from the list, the Freight Transport Association has existed since the 19th century. It would do no harm to specify it in the Bill. The amendment allows the Secretary of State complete discretion to add other organisations as he sees fit.

My earlier amendment did not include the trade unions. Having tabled the amendment, I looked at it the next day and thought, “Oh, there’s no reference to the trade unions”. At a meeting this morning, it was pointed out to me that, although my list is perfectly admirable as far as it goes, it does not refer to the National Farmers’ Union or the Farmers Union of Wales, whereas trailers are an important part of farm working. Therefore, it is important that we look very widely at the list of organisations. I gather that the Government have not yet consulted the trade unions—that is what the Minister said in Committee. I believe that she has not yet had the opportunity to meet the National Caravan Council. Given that this Bill is a coat-hanger, it is important that there is very wide government consultation because so many aspects of the Bill are going to be crucial to the haulage industry.

Whatever arrangement with the EU we come to in the end, it is important that all aspects of the haulage industry and of industries that are affected by haulage are consulted on the implications of the Bill. That is particularly the case because the Government now say that the Bill will come into play not just if there is no agreement with the EU but that aspects of the Bill will come into play whatever happens. I urge the Minister to consider the widest possible consultation in future on the Bill.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her amendment. We feel that the inclusion of a list of consultees in this clause would not give the Secretary of State sufficient flexibility to decide who needs to be consulted. I take the noble Baroness’s point that we can always add to the list, but as soon as we add organisations to it we are statutorily obliged to consult them. For example, if a highly technical amendment needed to be made or if a change were to be made to permits regulations, we would be obliged to consult trailer stakeholders. As I mentioned earlier, there are good precedents for the wording of the government amendment.

We are consulting widely on the regulations, beyond those organisations included in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, and I can reassure noble Lords that we will consult all the groups listed in her amendment. We are planning to consult on the regulations before the Bill receives Royal Assent, as we intend to bring forward regulations shortly after the passing of the Bill to give as much time as possible for hauliers to make any necessary preparations for leaving the EU.

On the noble Baroness’s point about the National Caravan Council, I have sadly not had the opportunity to meet it yet, but just this afternoon my honourable friend Jesse Norman, the Roads Minister, is meeting it to follow up on a number of meetings with officials.

On trade unions, the department regularly speaks to the unions, specifically Unite and the United Road Transport Union, on freight issues. We absolutely will involve them in the consultation on new regulations. Noble Lords referred to their helpful contributions on the criteria side of things, which we will also be looking at.

We have had workshops covering permits and trailer registrations and shared the policy scoping documents with stakeholders and, as I said, we intend to consult publicly in the next few months. That will now be a statutory requirement, should this amendment be accepted. We will continue to consult with all these organisations. We are very aware of how these regulations can affect industry, whether it be the haulage industry or the caravan industry, and indeed leisure users. I hope that reassurance allows the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I am pleased with the broad support that the government amendment has received, and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

22: Clause 21, line 2, leave out “the first”

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, my amendments would simply ensure that the affirmative procedure is used throughout, and not just in the first instance. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved on the issue of making this an affirmative procedure in the first instance, but I remind noble Lords that the DPRRC recommended the sifting procedure. It also expressed extreme concern about the vagueness of the Bill, to put it in simple terms. There is a strong case for ensuring that the affirmative procedure is used more widely than just in the first instance. This relates particularly to where offences are being created. There is an issue of public confidence that Parliament has had the opportunity to consider what is being done as a result of the Bill.

Amendment 28 once again reintroduces the concept of a sunset clause, which would cause Sections 1 and 3 of the Bill to expire after three years. The Secretary of State could extend that by affirmative resolution—this was recommended by the DPRRC. I believe that I have allowed a very generous time for the sunset clause. Our argument is that the Government should use the Bill—or at least Sections 1 and 3—to do what it was drafted for and what it was proposed that it should do, which is to be a backstop in relation to a failure to agree with the EU and reach some kind of settlement that is mutually acceptable on all sides. We very much hope that a failure to agree will not happen. We all hope that there will be a positive and strong agreement with the EU in the end. But, in the event of failure, the Government have this Bill, and it should be used for the purposes that it was apparently drafted for. I believe that it remains too wide and therefore that there is a good argument for a sunset clause and for ensuring that any offences created should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and, as it is the last group today, I am grateful for contributions throughout the passage of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has moved an amendment to provide a sunset clause for some aspects of permanent schemes introduced under the legislation, and the DPRRC report also recommended the insertion of sunset provisions. I agree that the Bill should not provide powers that may never be used, but use of the regulation-making powers set out in the Bill does not depend on the outcome of our negotiations with the EU, as we have discussed. The powers will be used in any event for applications outside the EU context—for applications pursuant to our bilateral agreements with non-EU countries, for example—so a sunset provision would constrain our ability to manage permit applications for those bilateral agreements.

I agree with the noble Baroness’s intention to ensure that unnecessary and unused legislation does not languish on the statute book but, as I said, that would not be the case. The effect of the amendment, even with the Secretary of State’s ability to extend it, would be to commit both government and Parliament to an unnecessary procedure. We would always need to extend the clause, as we would be using the regulations. For that reason, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I tabled the government amendment to apply the affirmative procedure to the first regulations made and those first regulations only. I have taken account of the views of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee—I am grateful for their work in scrutinising the Bill—and the concerns raised in Committee and agree that there should be further scrutiny of regulations in this case as they are likely to have an impact on the haulage sector. We believe that it is appropriate for the first regulations only; the same scrutiny is not required for subsequent regulations. The noble Baroness mentioned offences in particular. Again, we are following precedent by moving offences to affirmative first. In recent regulations, such as those under the Childcare Act, those offences are only affirmative first, and that is what we followed.

We want to ensure that scrutiny of the regulations in this area is proportionate, and we spent some time in Grand Committee debating the merits of the affirmative and negative procedures. We are using powers that will replicate many aspects of existing schemes such as those under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act, and those regulations are subject to the negative procedure but, given that these regulations will introduce an entirely new scheme, it is absolutely appropriate that they are affirmative in the first instance.

I hope noble Lords will agree that the government amendments allow proper and proportionate scrutiny, and I commend them.

[Baroness Randerson]

I am grateful to the Minister for the progress we have made. Taken altogether, this will make a clear difference to certain parts of the Bill and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 22 (to Amendment 21) withdrawn.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

15: Clause 12, page 8, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for compulsory registration of—(a) commercial trailers weighing over 750kg that travel internationally;(b) non-commercial trailers weighing over 3.5 tonnes that travel internationally; and(c) all new commercial trailers over 750kg.(1B) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for voluntary registration of all trailers not covered by subsection (1A).”

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 15 would require the Secretary of State to provide for compulsory registration of certain trailers. These requirements were suggested in the impact assessment by the Government as a possible registration scheme. We are simply suggesting that those requirements should be in the Bill. There is a number of reasons: first, as a general principle, this is an opportunity to flesh out this very thin Bill a bit in a meaningful way. It is, after all, a trailer registration scheme, and that is one of the two purposes of the Bill. If this amendment were on the face of the Bill, the Government would not be able to provide for a compulsory registration scheme for all trailers; in other words, this would narrow the scope.

The amendment would also give more clarity about the status of certain vehicles. On Second Reading and in our previous Committee sitting, several examples were raised regarding the uncertainty surrounding what categories would be applied to which trailers.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

The amendment refers to trailers weighing over 750 kilograms. Is that gross weight or net weight?

[Baroness Randerson]

It is, I gather, but that is the instruction from the Minister. We are working to the Government’s definitions.

This is a good opportunity to raise the issue of the voluntary registration scheme currently provided by the National Caravan Council, not to be confused with the Caravan Club. The council is an industry body which operates a very well-established scheme of registration. It is concerned that the Bill should not muddy the waters on registration. I am sure that it would like its own scheme to continue, but I am concerned that we do not end up with two different registration schemes with slightly different requirements and criteria. This will already add complexity to the existing situation, and we need to be careful that it does not become confusing as well as slightly more bureaucratic. How will the Government’s proposed scheme fit with the National Caravan Council scheme? Have she or her officials had discussions with the council, because it remains concerned about the issue?

Our other amendment in this group, Amendment 17, was drafted simply to help provide clarity to travellers who may, as a result of us not being a party to the community licence any more, be subject to different trailer registration requirements in different EU countries. The point has been made in debate here that Germany, for example, is quite stringent in its requirements on trailers. We are seeking to take the opportunity of this Bill to raise public awareness of the variation in the attitude between different EU member states to trailer registration. I very much hope that the Minister can give us some information to allay concerns.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 16 in this group. It is a probing amendment that would cover commercial and non-commercial trailers. It relates, along with Amendment 18 in the next group, to concerns raised by Karin Smyth, MP for Bristol South, prompted by a tragic case involving constituents of hers, Donna and Scott Hussey. Their son, Freddie, was killed in 2014 when he was hit by a trailer that had come loose from a Land Rover. The trailer’s tow-hitch was not secure as the position of its handbrake prevented it being properly locked down. The family and Karin Smyth have been campaigning ever since on the issue of trailer safety, and they have attracted support from successive road safety Ministers, including the current Minister, Jesse Norman. The National Trailer and Towing Association also supports legal changes.

My Amendment 16 simply says that there should be a compulsory register of trailers weighing under 3.5 tonnes, regardless of whether it is used in the UK or internationally, and that the register should be maintained by the Secretary of State. It is pretty obvious that registration is essential as a requirement for regular safety checks. There is no evidence in the impact assessment published alongside the Bill as to why the Government have set the weight rules at 750 kilograms and applied the regime to commercial trailers only. Why limit the scope in the way in which the department is proposing? Why not take advantage of the legislative opportunity that this Bill provides to widen the scope of safety checks? The Freddie Hussey case is not the only example of failed safety measures leading to loss of life. The Husseys, understandably, have done quite a lot of research and have come across several similar cases.

The impact assessment says that the Bill presents an opportunity to improve safety through better regulations. This amendment seeks to probe this possibility. I also give notice, if I may, that, if I get an unsympathetic response from the Minister, I might want to push this issue on Report. I would, of course, much prefer to get there by agreement and co-operation. I am sure that the Minister will be sympathetic to this and I hope that the Committee will be also. When we come to Amendment 18, I will flesh out some of the thinking behind this approach and the trailer safety requirement, which I will move later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

I am afraid that we do not have the detailed figures on trailer accidents ahead of the next discussion.

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the Minister for her reply. As usual, she has indicated that she is in discussions with the National Caravan Council. I am content with that. I will look carefully at the details of the reply, particularly in relation to the National Caravan Council’s registration scheme and its requirements.

The noble Lord asked about the size of the sector. As an illustration, the figures I have show that in the last year there were 65,000 new caravan registrations and sales—and that is only one sort of trailer. The National Caravan Council’s scheme registered more than a third of those, so it is an important scheme that already exists and it is important that it fits alongside the Government’s proposals. Obviously, I will come back to the Minister if I have any further questions, but at this moment I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Snape]

Desperate though we are to hear from the noble Baroness, and I know that she is equally desperate to put us right on this amendment, I am concerned about the tone of the debate. My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe has talked about the nanny state and not wishing to overregulate trailers. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said that this is about small trailers. He had one himself that he drove around the countryside and everything was fine. However, noble Lords ought to reflect on the fact that no matter how small they are, these trailers can travel at a fair old speed, depending on the mood of the driver. Even a small one breaking away on a motorway, for example, could cause an enormous amount of carnage.

I spent my working life in the railway industry, where the smallest wagon is inspected on a regular basis. That is probably the reason the railway industry has gone for a decade without killing a passenger in a moving train accident. The same does not apply on our road network. For my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe to talk about the nanny state ignores the fact that we are still killing a couple of thousand people and seriously injuring more than 10,000 on our roads. The smallest trailer, if badly maintained, could play its part in adding to that carnage.

My noble friend shakes his head, but he must be aware of the issues when he is driving on a motorway. Because of the lack of traffic police these days—we can play a game called “spot the traffic policeman”; the only time I see one is when I watch the television because I do not see any on our roads—I have been overtaken by people dragging those little trailers that my noble friend has just referred to. They drive in a cavalier way at 65 or 70 miles an hour, although strictly speaking they are supposed to be restricted to 50 miles an hour. If one of those trailers were to break away at 70 miles an hour, I do not care how small it is, it could cause a great deal of carnage on the road. I disagree with my noble friend’s view that the nanny state should keep out of legislation in this particular instance and I think that there is a proper case for inspection and regulation. I hope that the Minister will refer to it when the happy time comes and she is allowed to respond to the debate.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I cannot sit still any longer. I have listened carefully to the debate. For the avoidance of doubt, I have driven a trailer. For about 25 years I would pull a trailer once a year for our summer holidays going camping. It requires a different driving technique and I agree with the noble Lord that even a small trailer, if it has not been hitched properly, has been overloaded or is being driven badly, can be extremely dangerous.

I have decided to take part in this debate to ask the Minister if she agrees that the Government should look at the issue of trailer safety in the round, although this Bill may not be the place to do that. However, it is obvious that years ago in the minds of people at the Department for Transport, there was an association between the size of the vehicle being driven and the danger posed. I notice, having reached a certain age where one has to apply for a new driving licence, that without separate permission and a test, you are not permitted to drive large vehicles even if you drove such vehicles in the past. The concept that as you get older, certain aspects of driving are more difficult, has been applied to the issue of size, so I think that there is a case for the Government to look at the issue of the safety of trailers as a whole, not only in the context of the Bill.

[Baroness Golding]

My Lords, I, too, would hate to be left out of this debate. I have been driving for 65 years and I have never seen an accident caused by a trailer. I have never seen one tipped over at the side of the road. However, having said that, times have changed. These trailers are much more powerful than they used to be, so we ought to look at the legislation and decide what needs to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, as the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I am delighted to say a few words on Amendment 27. No doubt my noble friend the Minister swotted up on all the briefs and the grand issues relating to Brexit and European trailers; little did she know that she would have to hear confessions from Members on all sides of the Committee about their experiences driving good trailers, big trailers and dodgy little trailers—and wheels falling off.

I am not sure whether I can trump the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, but as a boy up on the farm in the Highlands I was able to drive a tractor by the age of 10 and drive it on the highway by the age of 12. When I was allowed legally to drive a car on the highway, my first car was a three-gear Ford Prefect which, on a long downhill slope, I once got up to 62 miles an hour—I could drive the tractors a bit faster.

The Delegated Powers Committee has recommended the sifting committee procedure for Clauses 1 and 2. We recommend it for Clause 1 because, as we say in our report,

“the content of any regulations made under clause 1 will depend on future international agreements … there is no current indication as to what regulations under clause 1 might say or how important they might be, if they are needed at all … it cannot be known in advance that the negative procedure will always be suitable for regulations made under clause 1 … it might transpire that some regulations made under clause 1 might require the affirmative procedure”.

On Clause 2, to shorten our report to the basics, we cite the Explanatory Memorandum which states that,

“it is not yet clear what sort of a regime or regimes will need to be introduced and, in the interest of ensuring that the provisions cater for agreed scenarios and are not too wide, it is necessary to legislate by way of secondary legislation once negotiations have been concluded and the nature of any permit scheme that needs to be introduced is clear”.

We say:

“Although the Government do not currently know what regulations under clause 2 will contain or how significant they will be, the Government propose that the negative procedure will always apply”.


For that reason, we think that there should be a sifting mechanism where colleagues in the House can decide which ones are tiddly statutory instruments and the negative procedure is okay and which ones require the affirmative procedure.

We stress in paragraph 10:

“We are not seeking to make a sifting mechanism a general feature of our legislative landscape”—


we are not seeking to attach it to every Brexit Bill.

“However, the circumstances of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union have given rise to unique legislative challenges”.


We know that next year we may have 800 to 1,000 statutory instruments to get through, perhaps in a short period of time. In those circumstances we have recommended the sifting procedure to the House. I know that the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, has rejected that already, but we recommend it for the Bill because the first five clauses begin with the words, “Regulations may”. That is almost unique. Because there will be so many regulations and some will be routine, trivial and therefore not crucial, some will be mega important and may require the affirmative procedure, we commend the sifting mechanism—exactly the same procedure as we identified in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, using the same secondary legislation scrutiny procedure, not creating any new all-singing all-dancing committee—to the Committee, and I commend it to my noble friend.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, my Amendment 23 is an attempt to tackle the issue in a parallel manner. It takes on board the Delegated Powers Committee report which I think we can say was not entirely favourable. Last week, I quoted the committee as saying that the Bill is,

“more of a mission statement than legislation”.

As the noble Lord just said, the committee specifically referred to Clauses 1 to 5 all beginning with the words, “Regulations may”. It also chastised the Department for Transport for not producing some illustrative regulations alongside the Bill and urged us to probe the Government in Committee. I am trying to follow its advice.

As the committee report highlights, 16 of the 24 clauses contain delegated powers, all of them subject only to the negative procedure. Amendment 23 attempts to rectify this, ensuring that the substantive clauses of the Bill are subject to the affirmative procedure.

I also want to note that the Constitution Committee said specifically that Bills like this are difficult for Parliament to scrutinise and—this is the key phrase—present a fundamental challenge to the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive. Given the reference just now by the noble Lord to the number of statutory instruments that we have coming through, it is important that we continue to maintain a more stringent attitude to SIs than is indicated by the Bill as currently written.

Amendment 21 particularly highlights Clause 17, which would give the Secretary of State the power to create offences by statutory instrument. Labour’s Amendments 24, 25 and 27 relate to the sifting committee for statutory instruments, which was recommended in the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. I believe that these are very sound suggestions and I support them. There are good reasons for adopting a more rigorous attitude towards this and I am sure that the Minister would be the first to admit that at this stage the Government do not have absolute clarity as to how they are going forward. To my mind, that is an even stronger argument for why we should have some form of sunset clause and sifting to ensure that the important elements of this Bill are properly scrutinised in the future.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I have no idea why your Lordships keep banging on about affirmative orders and want everything to be done by the affirmative procedure. It is good that we have my noble friend the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with us, and we have his counsel. However, in my opinion, and it may be wrong, his committee keeps recommending the affirmative procedure when it is not appropriate.

These are insignificant matters. We are talking about having an international permit for heavy goods vehicles and about registering trailers. The Bill does not provide for significant or severe penalties—they are limited in the Bill. But my noble friend the Minister can make drastic changes by means of negative instruments. For instance, using Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, she can change the construction and use regulations, having decided one day that every car must have a 20 kilogram dry-powder fire extinguisher. That would be really painful and a tremendous waste of money, but she can do that under the negative procedure. Or she could put a requirement in the construction and use regulations that it is very easy to fall foul of. That would be undesirable, but again, she can do so under the negative procedure.

It there was a problem with the regulations that will arise from this Bill or with a negative instrument—perhaps the penalties are too severe, although they are limited, or have other unintended consequences—the negative instrument can be prayed against; I think the praying period is 40 days. Industry and stakeholders have very good means of alerting Her Majesty’s Opposition to any problems with new regulations. If there are undesirable effects, the Opposition and other parliamentarians have a range of tools they can use to flag them up. Her Majesty’s Opposition can require a negative instrument to be debated on the Floor of the House, and they can also make sure that it takes place in prime time.

[Baroness Randerson]

I recall the noble Earl saying similar things last time, but he knows as well as I do that the precedents for that kind of activity—that kind of movement against negative instruments—indicate how difficult it is to actually change anything. He knows there is an outcry if we try to deal with things like that in the way that he describes. Is it not therefore better to have a more precautionary approach? Although the issues here might seem small, the big issue of whether we can trade properly abroad and with our neighbours is fundamental to the whole economy. I think the noble Earl would accept that the tenor across the Room today has not been that of a group of people seeking minute regulation. There has been a very reasonable attitude towards increasing regulation.

[Earl Attlee]

On the precautionary principle, the problem I have is that we are using precious time to debate things that we do not need to. When I was an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I dealt with affirmative orders while thinking, “Why in God’s name are we debating this?” One day, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, came in with a defence order—a Foreign Office order or something. She made a big speech, and I just smiled at her and then the order went through.

The other point that the noble Baroness raised was about the difference between an affirmative order and a negative one. The ability to debate it and to change it is no different whether the order is affirmative or negative. The only difference is whether it has to be debated or whether it gets debated only if we can flag it up: our ability to amend it is no different. I am going to get killed now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, my Amendment 28 in this group is to Clause 23. It provides a sunset clause which would cause Clauses 1 and 3 to expire after three years, which is a period that the Secretary of State could extend by affirmative resolution. This was recommended by the Delegated Powers Committee.

Amendment 22 to Clause 21, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, requires the Secretary of State to lay a draft of the regulations he intends to make under Clauses 1 to 5 and 2 to 18 before the House within three months of the Bill passing. I understand the purpose of this: to improve scrutiny and introduce a sunset clause, but I am not sure that we support the three-month timeframe in this case. We expect the Secretary of State to consult thoroughly before making the regulations and, to my mind, three months is not a realistic period. I understand that the need to make law quickly has to be balanced by the need to make law well, and that always requires consultation, but the Minister has our sympathy if she has to keep to a three-month timescale. I think that that is overly ambitious, but the principle of a period within which the work has to be done is very good.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I have some sympathy for the noble Baroness’s amendment. I have general concern about Acts of Parliament hanging around on the statute book that have not been commenced. I have drafted an amendment that I have not used yet—I will willingly share it with the noble Baroness—and discussed it with officials, along with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Some pretty high-profile bits of legislation have hung around causing hellacious problems when the Government did not implement them. I have sympathy with her amendment, but I suspect that there are reasons why it is not appropriate for the Bill, although we need to stop legislation hanging around that has not been commenced.

[Baroness Randerson]

To clarify, the reason for this is that with most Bills we pass here, the Government believe that they need the legislation—whether we like it or not—and have a clear idea of how they are going to implement it. This Bill suffers from a number of uncertainties over exactly how it is going to work in practice and even whether it will be needed. It is worth remembering the Minister’s opening words, which were to the effect that this was a Bill the Government hoped they did not need.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

The amendment I have in this group is just to tease out when the Secretary of State might bring forward the licensing arrangements. We would like to have some idea of the timetable. I accept that this is a Bill the Government do not want to use and I suspect that the industry would rather they did not either. Most of us would think that it would be better to have the current system than what is on offer here, not least because operators will end up being charged. But I would like some idea of the timetable and how the Secretary of State intends to organise these regulations.

I rather take to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is very valuable for Clauses 1 and 3. Obviously, I support Amendment 22, moved by my noble—and good—friend Lord Tunnicliffe.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

26: Clause 21, page 13, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) Before making any regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Road Haulage Association;(b) the Freight Transport Association;(c) the National Caravan Council;(d) the Caravan Club;(e) the Institute of Grocery Distribution;(f) the British Retail Consortium;(g) the Food and Drink Federation; and(h) such other persons or organisations as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I will be brief on this amendment. The DPRRC report mentioned that the Government have given no examples of the regulations that they intend to make under the Bill. Given the wide-ranging consequences these could have—not just for industry but also for hobbies and leisure; indeed, for the whole of life—it is essential that there is full consultation before regulations are put before Parliament. We have suggested a range of organisations; some are obvious and some are less obvious, but I am absolutely sure that it is not a comprehensive list. However, it is presented here as an opportunity to ask the Minister about the details of how the consultation will take place, the nature of the consultation and which organisations will be consulted. I can see immediately that the list we have put forward—apologies come from my noble friend Lord Teverson who is at Defra discussing the marine safety audit—does not include, for example, trade unions, given that there are obviously employee interests in this as well as employer interests.

I do not need to delay the Committee any further. It is simply a question of whether we can have some details on the consultation process. I beg to move.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, to cut my contribution short, I shall quote from page 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“A consequence of ratification is that unregistered trailers could be turned away at the borders of other countries who have ratified the 1968 Convention. Therefore, for operational reasons, a trailer registration scheme needs to be implemented”.


I would have thought that critical to the process of consultation was the AA, because at our borders that organisation is the last port of call for people who need advice on what is going to happen when they go abroad. The leaflets that it circulates are about subjects such as travelling abroad, insurance arrangements and health arrangements. You can pick them up in its kiosks at Dover, or I suppose at any port where you have a roll-on, roll-off ferry system. They should be made available. That is my case, and I hope the AA is consulted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My noble friend makes a very good point as always. No, we would not consult trade unions unless it were relevant to do so.

I understand the noble Baroness’s and noble Lord’s point: many of the people who will be affected by this will indeed be employees travelling to and from the continent. We need to make sure that the regulations work for them as well as employers, and that the people who will be responsible for registering the trailers and applying for the permits are consulted too. We have not yet had any formal consultations with the trade unions, but I will certainly take that away and we will look to involve them at the appropriate point.

[Baroness Randerson]

In view of the Minister’s response, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Rural Bus Services

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Randerson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they have taken to improve rural bus services.

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

My Lords, buses are a vital part of our public transport system and the Government are committed to supporting them. They can be particularly important in rural areas, where many people depend on their local bus service, but no single solution will work for all rural areas. The Government are providing funding and powers, most recently through the Bus Services Act 2017, so that local authorities can work in partnership with local bus operators to identify and support services that best fit the needs of individual communities.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the rural bus network has been cut by 40% in the last 10 years, with further cuts planned, for example in Norfolk and Kent. Councils blame a £200 million shortfall when the Government reimburses them through the concessionary fares scheme. Many older people, as the Minister said, rely on this in isolated communities. Will the Minister agree to review funding for concessionary fares and to look at funding for community transport to replace bus services where they are no longer provided?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, last year the Government renewed our commitment to supporting older and disabled people. We recognise the importance of accessible and affordable transport and are therefore entirely committed to the concessionary fares. Through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, local authorities are provided with the funding to meet their statutory obligations over concessionary travel. Bus operators are reimbursed on the basis that they are no worse off for carrying concessionary pass holders. We issue guidance to help local authorities administer that concession, consistent with that principle.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 13th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, you will have to bear with me; it is a while since I have had to do this.

I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to Grand Committee and hope that she enjoys it as much as we will. Amendment 1, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is very simple. Its aim is to ensure that the Government have as a negotiating objective continuing participation in the EU Community licence arrangements. Those arrangements have served the UK well. One might argue that they have created a frictionless regime for borders, are easy to understand and largely ensure safe passage of UK goods across the EU 27 and from the EU into the UK.

The Minister should welcome the amendment because it is surely what the Government want to secure in their negotiations. To put it into the Bill would give the freight industry the sort of confidence that it requires and demonstrate beyond doubt that the Government are very much on the industry’s side. If anyone needed reminding of the importance of freight to our economy, they need go no further than read last night’s Hansard. I have had the benefit of reading it, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, among others, was passionate in his arguments on behalf of the freight industry generally, but for our economy in particular, when he moved amendments on freight-related issues. In particular, his Amendment 104 to Clause 7 of the withdrawal Bill caught my eye. It has similar objectives to this amendment in the sense that any new procedures that we put in place should avoid increasing delays to freight transport. The only surefire way to achieve that is to continue the current scheme.

The volume of traffic between the UK and the EU is enormous. In 2016, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley reminded us, 67 million tonnes of unitised freight were imported or exported, of which 14 million tonnes were temperature-controlled. There are 3,000 trucks a day carrying temperature-controlled loads. In one year alone, 55 million UK customs declarations had to be made, and my noble friend says that this is likely to multiply fivefold after Brexit.

We want at all costs to avoid the queues we have seen when Operation Stack has had to kick in. That would kill our export trade and decimate our ability to move materials into the UK for industry and farming purposes. Seeking to emulate what we already have must be an objective of the Bill, and that is what my amendment achieves.

I look forward to the happy prospect of the Minister not just welcoming my amendment but agreeing to busily import it and incorporate it into the Bill. I cannot believe that the Government would want to create any doubt in anyone’s mind about their intention to be successful in their negotiations and to secure the self-same benefits for the road freight sector that we currently enjoy. I am sure that the FTA and RHA would welcome that certainty. I am confident that our farming industry would want it and that manufacturers, the pharmaceutical sector and, importantly, the construction industry would want it too.

It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I say just a few words about some of the other amendments in my name in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I have put our names to sunset provisions simply because, if the Government are successful, not only do the main provisions of the Bill cease to have relevance but we both feel that the clauses should cease to have a place on the statute book. These amendments are supported by the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee; I draw colleagues’ attention to the Constitution Committee’s report that has just been published. I also support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in the group. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I signed Amendment 1 because it drew attention to the fact that, yet again, we have an example of the Government trying desperately to devise a way to maintain a position that we already have. They are fighting to keep the benefits that we currently enjoy as members of the EU. Although the Government have been quite innovative in their approach—in so far as there is any detail—the situation will clearly not be anything like as good as what hauliers currently enjoy.

The formulation in the amendment is similar to that used in the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, for example, in which we urge the Government to pursue Euratom membership. The Minister will be familiar with my Private Member’s Bill on the open skies agreement; it is the same formulation. We have a perfectly good arrangement in the EU at the moment, which we will leave for something less satisfactory. This group of amendments ensures that the powers granted under the haulage permits Bill are not applicable if we stay within the EU’s Community licence regime—in other words, if we successfully negotiate to remain in some kind of positive relationship within the EU.

I draw attention to the very harsh words of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Bill. They reflect the sort of thing that we have heard quite regularly recently, but they are rather stronger than we are used to:

“The Bill is wholly skeletal, more of a mission statement than legislation”.


The committee also points out that:

“16 of the 24 clauses contain delegated powers, all of them subject only to the negative procedure”.


We have not even got draft regulations in order to see what the Government are aiming at.

It is clear that the Bill was written in a panic at the very last minute. It is the first instance I have come across of the Government legislating while saying that they do not want to and admitting that they do not know how the system will work. That is not how British democracy should work. It is yet another example of the destructive impact of Brexit. Having admitted that they did not want to have to legislate in this way, the Government should have included in the Bill some sunset clauses or the use of only the affirmative procedure. As it stands, the Bill is not worthy of a democracy.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in their amendment. Noble Lords will have to forgive me if I sound even less coherent than usual today. I am suffering from what everybody else would call a cold, but, being a man, I believe it is something far more serious. Nevertheless, I am still here.

I would have thought, as my noble friend implied, that the Government would be in favour of the proposed new clause. As the noble Baroness said, this is rather last-minute legislation. In a way, it is understandable, because we still do not know how far negotiations have gone where these matters are concerned. I promised myself not to make a Second Reading speech and will not, but I found it surprising during the Brexit discussion to find so many road hauliers in favour of Brexit because they were not happy with the status quo as it then was. Now, of course, they are a lot less happy at the prospect of a status quo no longer existing. The main concern, at least of those whom I spoke to, was about cabotage; there is little mention—in fact, I do not think there is any—of cabotage in the Bill, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether any discussions which have taken place with the rest of the EU have concentrated on this aspect of the road haulage industry.

My noble friend and the noble Baroness mentioned the number of lorry movements from the United Kingdom to the rest of the EU; there are a hell of a lot coming the other way—I understand about three times as many. We have expressed concern about the likelihood of Kent being a lorry park if no arrangements are made in light of this amendment, but if three times as many lorries are coming into the United Kingdom as leaving, it would be possible to imagine northern France also becoming a lorry park. That is not to say that I share the optimism of those who say that there will be an agreement because these matters cause even more dislocation to our European partners than they do the United Kingdom. Again, it is difficult to tease from the Government where exactly we are in the negotiations. We await the Minister’s response to this amendment. My view is that it might be something that the Government are happy to support. If she says that, at least we will have started the Committee off on a happy note, even if it is not repeated—although I hope it will be—during our deliberations. I support my noble friend and the noble Baroness and hope that the Minister can give a sympathetic response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 6 and 11 in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I do so in my capacity as chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

The first thing I need to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is that it is a bit unfair to characterise my committee’s report as having “very harsh words”. The noble Lords, Lord Tyler, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Thurlow and Lord Lisvane, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan do not do harsh. Further, if one looks at my committee’s report, one will see that we have made five recommendations, two of which say that it would be nice to have a sifting committee and two of which say that we should have a sunset clause, as proposed in Amendments 6 and 11. The first recommendation suggests that it would have been helpful if the Government had given us some examples of the type of regulations necessary. If those are “harsh words”, I think the noble Baroness is living in cloud-cuckoo-land, if I may say so.

[Baroness Randerson]

Can I clarify that? Having used the term “harsh”, I then used the precise words that are in the report. Anyone reading these proceedings will be absolutely clear that my definition of “harsh” is based on the words used in the report. It might be in the eyes of the reader rather than the reality of the situation.

[Lord Blencathra]

I thank the noble Baroness. Our report does say:

“The Bill is wholly skeletal, more of a mission statement than legislation”.


It goes on to say in paragraph 4 that:

“We appreciate that the position remains unclear for a variety of reasons”,


which explains why we think the Bill is skeletal. I hope my noble friend the Minister can give us a few examples of the sort of regulations that may be necessary.

On Amendments 6 and 11, the Government’s helpful Explanatory Memorandum says that:

“The power has been left to delegated legislation rather than included in the Bill because the terms of international road transport agreements are as yet unknown. The provisions put in place, if any provisions are needed at all, will reflect the terms agreed between the UK and the EU or other countries for the carriage of goods”.


The wording in the Explanatory Memorandum is almost identical on Clauses 1 and 3, to which these amendments relate. That is why we simply say in our committee’s report:

“Given that regulations under clause 1”—


and Clause 3—

“might prove to be unnecessary, we recommend that the Bill should contain a sunset provision, extendable if necessary, to remove the regulation-making power in clause 1 if it does in fact prove to be unnecessary”.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on tabling that amendment on behalf of my committee. I had been a bit negligent in putting it down myself, so I am grateful to him and I would be grateful if the Minister, in due course, could respond to the points made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, Amendments 2, 4 and 5 in my name come from a question I have about Clause 1: why do drivers transporting goods to Northern Ireland get singled out? We know that the Republic is going to remain in the single market and that Northern Ireland is not. I see no difference between the requirements for a permit, or anything else, for drivers going between Northern Ireland and the Republic, between Northern Ireland and the UK—I assume that there is no need for a special licence between Northern Ireland and the UK—and between Northern Ireland and continental Europe. There is an added complexity to the licensing system which is not justified. What is the difference between drivers in Northern Ireland and those in other parts of the UK going to other parts of the European Union? Finding that out is the purpose of these three amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name also deals with Northern Ireland. It is a probing amendment, seeking an explanation from the Minister. Following an “international agreement”, Clause 3 allows the creation of regulations prohibiting an operator of a goods vehicle using it in specified circumstances. This creates obvious problems for the Irish border. If an international agreement were able to prohibit the travel of goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, this could lead to a diminishing sense of the common identity that has developed in the years following the Good Friday agreement. It also presents a practical problem, as the avoidance of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would not be possible. We all know that the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that she wishes to avoid a hard border, but you are going to have a problem delivering that if checks are needed on the border. Whether the operator can cross the border or not, it is the checks that are the issue.

The Bill suggests that there is a sensitivity about travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Our amendment simply strengthens that reference. We obviously do not want to imply that there should be checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK—quite the contrary. I therefore want to emphasise that the amendment is to investigate how this provision would work and in what circumstances the Government anticipate that they might have to use it. It would obviously be a lot easier for everyone if we kept to the current arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, “first come, first served” implies immediately a limited number of permits, a shortage of permits and problems in the industry. I want to read the general conditions from one such permit issued nearly 35 years ago, which civil servants may find useful during the negotiations. It is quite short, but raises a number of issues. Under “General Conditions”, it states:

“This authorisation, together with the journey record mentioned below, must be carried on the vehicle and be produced at the request of any authorised inspecting officer. It authorises only the number of journeys indicated. It is not valid for national transport. It is not transferable. The carrier is required to comply, in the territory of each Member State, with the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of that State, and in particular with those concerning transport and traffic. This authorisation must be returned to the issuing agency within fifteen days of date of expiry. Before each transport operation, the holder of this authorisation is required to prepare any journey record provided for in bilateral agreements. Such journey record must be returned at the same time as this authorisation”.


So it is a fairly complicated process for the hauliers.

If it is not used within 15 days of the date of expiry, it is returned, but that permit has already been allocated to a specific journey—if that is what it says in the terms and conditions. Is that permit then written off? Does it affect the total number or permits that are allocated, or can we simply allocate a substitute permit, having declared that permit to be written off? I am asking this because, if a limited number of permits are allocated, there is going to be some argument about where they are going. I am trying to establish how we calculate the total numbers that are allocated.

I have been thinking about the earlier intervention by my noble friend Lord Snape. He talked about it being of benefit, in certain circumstances, to our haulage industry. There is a problem there, because we want to avoid that. If we are going into these negotiations on the basis that we want enough permits to supply all the demand, the last thing we want to do is starve the Irish of permits. If they need them, they should be given them, because that helps our case in the negotiations with the European Union.

[Baroness Randerson]

In her reply, will the Minister clarify exactly what these permits will be? The background briefing that her department issued referred to single-journey permits and multiple-journey permits. It referred to the European Conference of Ministers of Transport permit system. Having researched this, I believe that the number of permits available under that system would be absolutely tiny. Where are these permits going to come from? What is going to regulate them? Are we going to dream it up ourselves or base it on the international system? We need a bit of clarity on this.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords again for their contributions to this debate. I assure noble Lords that this provision is not intended to allow these methods to be the only approach used, or for these to be used without the use of other criteria. We are in the process of negotiating with the EU on how UK hauliers will operate in the EU 27 after our withdrawal. As I said, we are confident we will secure an agreement which allows them to operate without restrictions on market access. If we do agree a permit system, “no restrictions” would mean unlimited permits. The exact nature of what will be in the permits will be down to the international agreement with the EU. We do not have details of that yet, but I imagine that it would follow the international information which is included on them. I will take back the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I will look in detail in Hansard about what the exact restrictions on that permit are. I am not sure that we would repeat them in a future system.

In including this, we are attempting to be prudent in ensuring that the industry would be able to continue to operate under a range of different outcomes. It may be that, depending on our future partnership agreement, in some circumstances, the demand for permits may exceed the available number. As I said, that is not the aim of negotiations or what we are hoping for, but we have a duty to plan for that, as a contingency.

One of those outcomes could see the permit scheme we agree involving a set quota of permits. The Bill allows us to set criteria to allocate those permits, should we need to. The detail of the criteria will be setout in regulations and guidance. We have set out some examples in the scoping documents. In such a case, criteria such as the economic benefit the permit would bring would be reflected. Of course, a more sensible way of allocating permits would be the best outcome. However, if the use of those criteria—set out in the regulations—was not sufficient to balance demand versus supply, we may need to apply a further method such as random allocation to decide between applicants. For example, if we were able to clearly allocate 90% of applications because of the economic case, we could then use a first come, first served basis or random allocation to allocate the other 10%. As I said, and as noble Lords have made clear, we want to avoid a system with a limited number of permits, but we need the ability to allocate them should we find ourselves in the unfortunate situation of their being limited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I rise to speak specifically to Amendment 12, to which I added my name, but also to the group as a whole, because it covers the cost of all this to the haulage industry: the cost of UK-registered vehicles operating in the EU; the efficiency of haulage after Brexit; future arrangements for the international transport of goods; and the cost impact. I have a slight feeling of Groundhog Day. I will spare your Lordships much of the detail, but I have been through this once in the previous 24 hours, during the EU withdrawal Bill debate, when we covered some of the same territory. For the sake of variety, I will say a few different things because there are plenty of things to say.

A report came out today—hence it was not the topic of my speech last night—by Clifford Chance and Oliver Wyman. It estimates that the costs to business of Brexit in terms of customs arrangements, additional legal and bureaucratic requirements and haulage requirements in relation to customs arrangements for goods in transit will be £32.8 billion. I always measure things in relation to £350 million, for reasons that might be obvious to some noble Lords here; that figure comes out at roughly double £350 million a week. That is a very significant issue and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, illustrated the situation so well with original documents. I recall that, a year ago, one of the haulage organisations—forgive me, I am delving into my memory and cannot remember which one—sent us a briefing about the costs to the haulage industry. It illustrated them by saying that, depending on the type of goods being carried, driving from the UK to Italy and back could require 64 different pieces of documentation. In this day and age, I am sure that would not be pieces of paper, but people have to fill in the forms online in just the same way. Anyone who spends as much time filling in forms online as I do will know that it is very easy to make one of the mistakes referred to by the noble Lord.

Last night, we talked about delays at the ports. Dover is a particularly stark example because of its geographical configuration and the built-up area around it. That all adds to the cost, and the issue of permits and other documentation is key to getting the lorries through Dover and all the other ports as quickly as possible.

The amendments address the impact of additional border controls and delays, the costs of which go well beyond the haulage industry. When we had Operation Stack—and Dover port is predicting worse queues than Operation Stack as a regular feature—it cost the police and council in Kent £1 million a day. All these other things add up, so it is so important that any permit system is simple, straightforward and as flexible as possible.

I also emphasised last night that we talk all the time about the cost to government, but businesses have to internalise and absorb those costs or pass them on to their customers. In the case of large companies, that might be quite reasonable over a period, but there are SMEs that have only ever exported to EU countries. They will never have dealt with custom systems before, and will not be familiar with the whole process. They will have to set up whole new departments and systems, which will be of significant cost to business and have significant impact on our industry. That applies across the board.

The Clifford Chance report picked out the impact on the car industry because car parts move across borders frequently during their production. The impact will be on car manufacturers not just in this country but in other countries bringing their cars and car parts to us.

I very much hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the Government are doing some work on this and will soon be able to produce some hard figures. Reports have been published. They may be accurate or inaccurate, but the work has been done. Individual industries are doing that work. It would be very useful if we had some information on what the Government calculate will be the impact.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I see merit in some of the amendments. Clearly, we need to know the outcome of the negotiation and what the impact will be. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned demurrage, which is a good point. If you have a complex system, you can foul up. The problem for a small haulier is getting anyone to pay demurrage. It might be in the contract, but you try getting your customer to pay it for a small haulage business: you will struggle. It may be okay if you have a supertanker and your contract agreed on the Baltic Exchange, but for a little haulage deal? Forget it.

The Committee needs to consider the position of our EU partners. It is not in their interest to have a complex system either. We have the Hams Hall engine plant making BMW engines that have to go to Germany. We know perfectly well that automotive components go backwards and forwards several times, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said. It is in no one’s interest to have a complex system.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, this clause refers to the payment of fees for the permits that we have been talking about. Currently, hauliers have to buy a licence to register as hauliers, but they are also able to have on request a Community licence, which will be equivalent to the permit and which is free. However, under the scheme that the Government envisage, Clause 5 gives them the power to levy fees for the permits. I want to know why the Government feel they should charge fees for something that up to now has been provided to the hauliers free of charge.

The hauliers seem to be suffering several times over. Rather than having this easy-to-access, free and on-demand Community licence, they now have to apply for a specific permit, pay for it, perhaps even queue for it if we are still talking about first come, first served—and all this when in the end they are going to have a much less convenient system.

My particular concern is for SMEs. Given that, when we discussed this informally, the Minister indicated that the amounts of money would be in the order of £50 or £55—if I recall correctly—clearly for a large haulage company operating vehicles on a daily basis, that will not be a massive amount of money and will be passed on to the customers, as is inevitable. However, this will be a significant additional cost for an SME. Can the Minister explain to us the cause of the Government’s decision to reclaim their costs, when clearly they have not done so up to now, whether they are open to persuasion that charging for this would not be a good idea and the basis on which charges will be levied?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, the noble Baroness raised some interesting issues, some of which I touched on earlier. When I read the impact assessment, I could see that there was clearly some consideration by the Government about the potential impact on SMEs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said. The assessment suggests that some SMEs would struggle. Clearly that worries us: we have a vibrant and viable haulage sector that works well and has served our economy well and we do not want to damage it.

I wonder what full-cost recovery really means and I wonder what extra the permit will be paying for. I saw reference in the impact assessment to a suggestion that inspections would be carried out—ones that perhaps do not currently have to be carried out—to make sure that permits are valid and do the job that they are supposed to do in terms of haulage operators being able to move across the EU 27. In particular, there was a suggestion on the trailer registration scheme that some benefits would accrue through an extra inspection regime. That may well be the case—we will have that argument another day and we have amendments that raise some of those issues—but what does full-cost recovery cover? How much is it likely to cost? What will the impact be on SMEs? What sort of inspection regime will take place? Will it mean an expansion in staff? The Minister suggested that the work will be undertaken by the DVLS, is it?

--- Later in debate ---

The Government believe that it is better for fees to be made under Clause 5 instead of making new fees using Section 56 of the Finance Act 1973. There is some uncertainty about the extent of the power to charge fees under Section 56 and, in particular, whether that section would enable us to charge fees for applications to recover the costs of processing those applications. We would be looking to charge for both the application and the issuing of the permit.

[Baroness Randerson]

Can the Minister clarify something? In their examples of existing permits where there are bilateral agreements, the Government refer to both single-journey and multiple-journey permits. Multiple-journey permits are clearly a lot less bureaucratic, but single-journey permits are a lot less expensive. Do the Government have an image of which way they are going on this or whether they are going to have single and multiple-journey permits if required?

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I am flying blind now—I should really know the answer to this question. When a British haulier travels in France now, I presume they pay a fee on the motorway. French motorways are very expensive. When a French haulier arrives in the United Kingdom, do they pay any charges for the use of our roads? I think not. If that is the case then we might like to raise this issue if we have any trouble with the French—particularly with the hauliers—in the course of the negotiations. It might not only be France; it might be that some other countries in Europe like to charge for the use of their motorways, such as the Italians, and I am sure that there are others as well. The Swiss get their share too—whenever I go through Switzerland they take me for a ride for 40 francs for my car alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

The reason we do not think the permit will be allocated to a specific truck is to allow for flexibility, should there be a limit on the number of permits. It will enable hauliers to move them between trucks, so they are not restricted to only one truck going back and forth to Europe. On fraud, we are designing a system to try to ensure that it will be allocated to a specific company. It may give us the number of trucks that could use the permit. We could check the licence plates and other things. We are working through the issues on that. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the Minister for the amount of detail she has given on this. Certainly, it is sufficient that I will have to look at the record and quite possibly come back with some more questions. I am very grateful for the amount of further information she has given us.

Clause 5 agreed.

Buses

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, 5% of all journeys are made by bus and buses are the most popular form of public transport. It is interesting that you do not meet many bus enthusiasts; you meet lots of train enthusiasts, but trains are in fact far less important to the day-to-day life of our nation. Some 4.5 billion journeys a year are made by bus but, as the noble Earl, Lord Arran, stated, the bus network is now back at 1980s levels and has shrunk by 8% in the past decade—or by 134 million miles—with 2,000 services affected. North-west England and Wales have been hardest hit, with a 40% reduction in rural areas in the past decade. Yet, ironically, in England at least, the number of passengers has increased slightly. It is just that there is no bus for them to go on and nowhere for them to go. The demand is clearly there. The analogy with the Beeching era and the cuts to trains in the 1960s is a very good one.

The cause of all this needs to be examined. The key issue is certainly local government finance. Local authorities face financial constraints and they have cut discretionary subsidised bus services. Councils have a statutory duty to fund concessionary travel by pensioners and disabled people. This is very popular with the public, but councils estimate that there is a shortfall of at least £200 million for the funding of concessionary fares. This has meant that they have diverted money to make up this shortfall, taking it from previously subsidised routes, concessionary fare schemes—which, in many cases, they had set up themselves, very often for young people—and community transport.

Although I am hopeful that the Bus Services Act will encourage better working between operators and councils, I believe that the Act missed opportunities. There were things that could have been done that were not done. For example, it could have been made easier for councils without elected mayors to establish franchising and there could have been stronger incentives or requirements for environmental improvements. I am very pleased that the Government are giving nearly £40 million to retrofit buses, which is going to 20 local authorities as part of the clean bus technology fund. That is great, but in some areas there are no buses to retrofit, and £40 million is certainly not going to solve the emissions problem. The Government could have created the bus passengers of tomorrow with mandatory concessionary fare schemes for young people, who need buses to get to jobs and education and for their social lives.

The Minister has heard time and again this afternoon concern for rural areas. I am aware that there was a phone-in programme recently where a man from Devon rang to say that in his village there were only three buses a week. He explained that if he wanted to go to the doctor, which was in the nearest town, he had to stay overnight because by the time he had had his appointment, the bus had returned home for the day. That is really dysfunctional and it makes it almost impossible to live in some rural areas without a car. A colleague of mine in the Welsh Assembly talked about seeing hitch-hiking pensioners in her rural constituency. I am worried enough about the concept of hitch-hiking pensioners; the idea that teenagers might be tempted to hitch-hike worries me even more.

The irony of all this is that one of the reasons why buses are struggling in urban areas is increasing traffic congestion, which leads to unpredictable journey times, and yet congestion is one of the main reasons why we need more buses to encourage people out of their cars on to more environmentally friendly forms of transport. A further irony is that another threat to our bus services is the fact that some councils, in attempting to set up ultra-low emission zones, are targeting buses—diesel buses—first. That is totally topsy-turvy. I realise that a diesel bus is polluting but you can get dozens of car owners on a diesel bus and save dozens of car journeys and therefore prevent those emissions. The establishment of ultra-low emission zones must be done in a balanced and sensible manner.

I end by asking the Minister: can she assure us that the Government will put more resources into supporting low and zero-emission initiatives for buses? Will the Government work with local authorities to ensure that buses are not primary targets in the establishment of ultra-low emission zones? Can she give us even a glimmer of hope that the Government are prepared to evaluate the potential benefits of youth concessionary fares? I emphasise that this is an issue of intergenerational justice. Older people such as me can have a bus pass but in many areas young people are not able to get that bus pass for themselves. Finally, will the Government review the grants to local authorities and the refunds for concessionary fares with a view to reforming them to create a better and fairer system for local authorities’ financial support for bus services?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for securing this debate and allowing us to talk about buses and the hugely important role that they play in our transport system.

Buses connect our communities to the workplace and to vital public services such as healthcare and education. For many, particularly those in rural areas—which I think all noble Lords spoke about today—the bus is an absolute lifeline, as over half of those who rely on buses outside London do not have access to a car. They play a vital role in our economy, with some 4.5 billion journeys a year, and remain the most popular form of public transport, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, highlighted.

Under-21s make up a third of bus passengers, and the use of buses by older people is increasing as a result of the national concessionary pass. As all noble Lords have highlighted today, the picture of bus usage across the country is mixed. While bus patronage has increased in some areas, other areas have seen a significant decline in passenger numbers.

The benefits of a reliable and innovative bus service are clear: greater productivity, and communities that are connected rather than apart. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that heavy traffic makes buses less reliable, less prompt, more costly to run and more polluting—and obviously less attractive to use because of that. They operate along fixed routes and cannot use any alternatives. It is not really a good advertisement to use buses when you see one stuck in traffic.

What is the answer? The best answer is encouraging more people to use buses. It is still the best form of regular high-capacity transport that we have. Unlike rail, a bus can go virtually anywhere, and a bus service can be set up very quickly and at a fraction of the cost of rail. But buses need help to achieve this. One solution is to improve traffic in the key corridors used by buses, and one of the most effective ways is to give them priority over traffic. The sight of a bus cruising past lines of stationary cars or getting ahead of the queue at a junction is a much better advertisement and certainly sends a clear message to motorists. Priority measures offer good value for money, and we are funding many bus projects up and down the country through the Local Growth Fund. There are rapid transit schemes in Slough, Reading and Swindon and bus priority corridors in Manchester and Birmingham, which are genuinely innovative projects that are making a big difference in some of our busiest towns and cities. Busways, which provide dedicated corridors only to buses, such as in Cambridge and Luton, are also extremely effective and have the ridership to prove it.

The Government introduced the Bus Services Act 2017 to help local authorities and bus companies work together to make bus travel more attractive. Together they can identify congestion hotspots that disrupt bus journeys and, through partnership commitments, do something about them. Bus operators have to up their game by making using the bus an easier option. We discussed the secondary legislation relating to the Bus Services Act 2017 earlier this week. The Act contains a range of options to improve local bus services in England. In addition to franchising, there are new and improved options to allow local transport authorities to enter into partnership with their local bus operators to improve services for passengers.

Local authorities can provide bus priority measures or do other things to make buses more attractive. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, touched on, this can include reducing car-parking provision, increasing its cost or better enforcing existing parking restrictions, introducing park-and-ride schemes, altering traffic light phasing and establishing bus lanes. There are lots of tools. The Act also allows local bus operators to improve their services by introducing multi-operator smart ticketing, using more environmentally friendly vehicles and providing comprehensive timetable and fares information. The partnership can also co-ordinate bus timetables and ticketing with other modes, such as rail services, to provide a seamless journey.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned the bus open data powers in the Act, which will go further than the partnership provisions to require all bus operators in England to open up real-time route, timetable, fare and ticket information to passengers by 2020. Since the Bus Services Act came into force last year, around 30 local authorities up and down the country have expressed an interest and we are working with them to roll out the scheme.

On the bus services operators grant—BSOG—which many noble Lords mentioned, commercial bus operators receive 43% of their income from the public purse. Each year the department provides £250 million in direct revenue support for bus services in England via the BSOG. Of that, more than £40 million is paid directly to councils outside London to support buses that are not commercially viable but which they consider socially necessary. The rest goes to commercial bus operators. Without this support, fares would increase and marginal services would disappear. The BSOG is currently paid on the basis of fuel used, but we are looking at ways of reforming it to make it even more effective in supporting bus services.

On local authority funding, I fully appreciate that local authorities are making very difficult choices as a result of ongoing financial pressures. The right reverend Prelate and others were correct to point out that BSOG funding was reduced in the 2010 spending review. A decision was made to reduce it by 20% to reflect the economic climate of the time. Since 2012 the Government have continued to maintain the BSOG at current levels and we are very aware of the importance of bus services to local communities. In recognition of this, we were able to protect BSOG funding as part of the 2015 spending review. We are looking at reforming the way the BSOG is paid to make it more effective in supporting bus services.

Noble Lords mentioned the advantages of more young people using buses, and I entirely agree. The level of fares is a complex area. There is no statutory obligation to provide discounted travel to young people, and I am afraid there are no plans to introduce it. Many commercial and publicly funded reductions are available. We are working to deliver significantly discounted bus travel for apprentices to ensure that no young person is deterred from taking up an apprenticeship by travel costs. I listened with interest to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the National Citizen Service, which is an excellent programme. I will take that away and have a look at it.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke about road user charging for vehicles as a solution to congestion. While I listened with interest, there are technical costs and privacy challenges and, not least, the importance of public acceptance of it, so I am afraid the Government have no plans to introduce such a road-pricing scheme. I am afraid there is more disappointment for the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, as the majority of English local authorities have taken on civil parking enforcement powers, but obviously not in the area in which the noble Lord lives. We think that CPE represents the most effective way for local authorities to manage and enforce parking. While we continue to support the rollout of CPE, we think it is up to each local authority to consider the financial and operational implications of taking on parking enforcement duties. For that reason, we let local authorities freely choose whether to apply for these powers, and have no plans to force the remaining non-CPE authorities to adopt them. But as I said, if they wish to do so, we will work with them. I am afraid I must also disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on the extension of civil enforcement powers to moving traffic offences, such as the yellow box. We have no plans to extend them. It is important to recognise that congestion has a wide range of causes. Obviously, there is that enforcement in London and Wales. Although we still have congestion here, we think there are better ways to address it and we are working on those.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans all raised the important issue of rural areas. The noble Baroness is quite correct that different areas have very different needs and expectations. Of course, extra pressures are placed on local authorities to provide services in more isolated areas. The Minister for Local Government is intending to increase support for the most sparsely populated rural areas by more than quadrupling the rural services delivery grant from £15.5 million to £65 million by 2019-20.

The right reverend Prelate also made the important point that bus services are relied on by many different groups in rural areas. It is important that the lack of provision does not further exacerbate any issues of loneliness. I will certainly go and see whether we can address the issue of transport.

[Baroness Randerson]

Since this is International Women’s Day, we ought to note in this debate that bus passengers are much more likely to be women than men. There is an issue here not just of intergenerational fairness but of gender equality.

[Baroness Sugg]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I was thinking about whether I could say something about women, given that it is International Women’s Day. I was not aware of that fact, so I thank her.

Providing transport solutions across wider geographical areas requires the effective use of all available options, whether it be traditional fixed-route bus services, community buses, dial-a-ride—as the noble Earl mentioned—or other services, such as social care or non-emergency patient transport. At present, the Government provide over £2 billion each year in funding for those services. That is spent by different bodies which are often providing transport for the same people at different times; for example, someone using non-emergency patient transport to get to a routine hospital appointment one day can be using a local dial-a-ride service to go shopping or visit friends the next day.

The funds do need to be spent in a more joined-up way. The noble Earl raised the issue of Total Transport. Two years ago, we launched our Total Transport pilot schemes across England to explore how councils, the NHS and other agencies can work together. The results of those pilot projects are still being analysed, but it is already clear that there is considerable further scope for public sector-funded transport to work together, whether it is provided by local authorities, community groups or the NHS. We will be publishing those results shortly.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about lane-rental schemes. The Government have trialled lane-rental schemes, encouraging utilities to work together at weekends and in the evenings. There is good news: that has proved successful. We are now encouraging local authorities to set up schemes in other areas across England. We laid a statutory instrument last week with guidance for local authorities and I look forward to the impact that may have on congestion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about the environment. She is quite right that buses emit fewer air pollutants than the equivalent number of car journeys taken by road, but on urban routes, where the majority of buses operate, with the stop-start conditions, the slower speeds and the traffic, as we have discussed, there are obviously issues. That is why we are trying to clean up the bus fleet. As the noble Baroness recognised, we invest in green buses. There is more that we can do: we will shortly be publishing our strategy towards zero-emission vehicles. Emissions have not yet been calculated on a per-head basis, partly because that would impact on decisions on bus purchasing, and we want to encourage the purchase of clean buses. But we are looking at further developing our transport energy model, possibly including emissions per head.

There is no single solution that will work everywhere, but the Government have a commitment to local transport, and the powers in the Bus Services Act will help reverse the decline in bus use and drive up patronage. However, central government can go only so far to encourage bus use. Buses are not provided by the state: outside London, some 80% are provided by commercial bus operators. Most of the roads that buses use are the responsibility of local authorities. Much is in the hands of local politicians, local authorities and the bus operators themselves. We all need to work together to make sure that buses can provide an effective way of tackling congestion.

Again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for introducing this debate. Buses are a key part of our transport system and perhaps we do not discuss them enough in your Lordships’ House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, often our emphasis is on rail. However, with the SI this week, the debate today and the Question on rural buses from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I am pleased that we have been given the opportunity to do so. Very appropriately, after waiting so long for a debate on buses, we have now had three come along at once. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government are committed to maintaining and improving local and public transport in all areas, whether in the largest cities or the most rural villages.

Brexit: Aviation

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord is right: we are currently looking to roll out GPS use as part of our programme to modernise the airspace, which is well overdue. Planes currently have to fly lower and for longer to avoid the routes, and so modernisation and the introduction of technology will benefit the environment.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, Brexit will probably mean additional bureaucratic hurdles for leisure and private pilots and planes flying to the rest of the EU. Can the Minister confirm whether this has been discussed in negotiations so far with the EU and the US? Can she further confirm whether a report in today’s Financial Times is accurate when it states that the US has so far offered us only a “standard bilateral agreement”, which would be a problem to our major airlines which have large foreign shareholdings?

[Baroness Sugg]

The Government have yet to start detailed transport negotiations with the European Union. The Prime Minister confirmed on Friday the ambition to seek participation in the EASA system, and we stand ready to continue those conversations as soon as we are able. I do not recognise the description of the talks with the US on a new UK-US air service agreement. The talks have been positive, we have made significant progress and both sides want to conclude these discussions soon.

Renewable Transport Fuels and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations 2018

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I think you could sum up what I feel about these regulations by saying, “At last!”—because this legislation has been delayed for many years. It goes back to the 2013 directive and we are now in something of a race against time to get it approved before next month, I believe, when a new year of target implementation comes into force. So it is very welcome, because the uncertainty has had a significant economic impact on the renewable transport fuel industry.

Interestingly, the aviation industry has also been asking for this for a long time and has warned that we are being left behind by a number of other countries. So I am pleased to see aviation included here, but I would ask the Minister for more detail on the Government’s plans for aviation. Sustainable Aviation has also called for government to de-risk investment in sustainable fuels by underwriting the risk and prioritising research into sustainable fuels to bring the UK into line with our competitors. What other measures are the Government taking to encourage sustainable aviation fuels?

My general comment is that, although the legislation is welcome, as ever it lacks ambition in its targets and timings. For instance, paragraph 8.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum explains the Government’s amended targets. There will no longer be a 2% interim target for greenhouse emissions in 2018, and the interim target will be left at 4% for 2019. Is that because the Government have run out of time to do it in 2018 or is it because, as the Explanatory Memorandum suggests, we are already at 2%? I would like some clarity on that, please, from the Minister.

As the Minister has just told us, the proposals include a crop cap, which the industry is of course unhappy with. Does the Minister believe that the proposal to put that cap at 4%, reducing to 2%, is stretching enough, and at the same time reasonable?

Throughout Europe, the United States and Australia, E10 is commonly used, and it is more environmentally friendly. Will the Government be introducing it later this year when the new regulations on fuel pump labelling come into force? I remind your Lordships that, in the past, British Governments have led the way—for example, on the introduction of unleaded petrol. Those were difficult decisions to make, but they were of huge importance for human health. This is a similar decision that needs to be made.

Behind all this is the force of EU law and requirements. I regret to say that the Government can no longer pretend to be at the forefront of EU policy on this, so I am anxious to get the Minister’s commitment that this is one area of EU environmental regulations where we as a nation will continue to shadow the leadership of the EU.

Finally, it is quite possible that the Minister will not be able to answer this now and might wish to write to me, but I would like a little information from her. In point 15 there is a reference to reporting on electricity usage by a supplier for the charging of electric vehicles. With the AEV Bill also before us, I am keen to see how exactly this requirement will work with that and how the data requirement in the Bill fits with these regulations. In asking this question I bear in mind, of course, that an electric car is really only as clean as the electricity that goes into it. The question of how electricity is generated is key, and in due course I would be grateful for further information on that.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness with a similar question. I was at a meeting this morning about electric cars, which was a sort of precursor to the Committee stage of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill. My question is about the addition of biofuels. Obviously I support the percentage increase up to 9.75% by 2020, but can the Minister tell me whether there are any types of motor that use this fuel that are adversely affected by it? The noble Baroness mentioned the aerospace sector. I understand that, among some parts of our large boating industry, which obviously uses lots of engines, there is a big worry about even the existing proportion of biofuels in the fuel because it adversely affects the engines. I do not know—if the Minister cannot answer this, perhaps she will write to me—whether it is because of the type of engine or because many boat engines spend most of the year doing nothing: it may be something to do with that. Manufacturers did not like the previous fuel and were even asking for two sets of fuel pumps, one with the biofuel addition and one without, which of course would cost an enormous amount of extra money.

I do not know whether this applies to any other type of motor. The railways are probably all right, as I suspect are most of the road transport and car industries, but it is important to know which type of motor and which type of use is adversely affected by this and what the manufacturers can do about it. Obviously it is good to increase the percentage, but if it is going to wreck engines in the process we will have to find a solution. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Seafarers (Insolvency, Collective Redundancies and Information and Consultation Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

The regulations before the House are intended to ensure that seafarers and share fishermen, where employed, have the same employment rights and protections as those who work in land-based roles. The measure is fully supported by UK social partners and by the Government. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, we should congratulate the Minister on bringing this legislation here. Since she took up her role as Minister, it is clear that she has looked into the dark corners of the Department for Transport’s cupboards, dusted off some badly overdue legislation and brought it into the strong light of day. I regret having to say this, but I have to ask again: why is it so late? I understand that this measure is based on the seafarers directive of 2013. It should have been transposed into UK law by October last year. So we are now six months overdue. I know that the Government are distracted by Brexit, but it is a bad symptom of a situation where a Government are really struggling to cope.

Of course, I support the proposals here; on these Benches, there is strong support for the principle behind the regulations. The big issue is whether they really equalise rights for seafarers, bringing them fully into line with those who work on land. We all realise that it is a much more complex issue, because if you work at sea national boundaries are crossed less obviously and supervision of terms and conditions of employment is probably much more complex. There are also complex employment patterns, as the Minister has pointed out.

One can therefore do nothing other than welcome the increased job security that there will be for seafarers as a result of these regulations—and perhaps dwell for the moment on the fact that it is quite ironic they have been introduced as a result of an EU directive at a time when many fishing and coastal communities are among those in the UK where support for leaving the EU was strongest. I fully support the regulations and thank the Minister for her explanation.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I come to these regulations still intellectually exhausted from biofuels and have set myself the minimum objective of trying to understand them. My few questions for the Minister are therefore just to understand them better.

The regulations and their accompanying Explanatory Memorandum seem, as far as I can see, to talk solely about share fishermen, where employed, and I am not clear whether the regulations affect anybody else. I thought that the easiest way to understand this might be to turn it on its head. The objective, we are told, is to turn the rights of seamen into the same rights that land-based workers have. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum identifies five directives, which are set out, covering five areas where in the present situation there is a difference between seamen and land-based workers. I was not clear whether all five were covered by the regulations. In simple terms, asking the obverse question, following the approval of the measure, what differences remain between seamen and land-based workers? If there are any differences, why have they been retained?