Rail Cancellations and Service Levels

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her answer, but it did not refer to the loophole that TransPennine Express exploits. When it cancels trains before 10 o’clock, these are not counted in terms of the delay repay compensation. This also massages its statistics, so that it looks better than it is. The real picture is significantly worse than the official picture. Have the Government investigated whether other train operating companies are exploiting this loophole? If so, which ones are? Can the noble Baroness assure us that the rules will change so that passengers get a more honest picture of train performance? Finally, will she assure us that the Government are committed to improving the terms and conditions of their contracts with the train operating companies? Avanti got a seven-figure performance payment, despite it having the worst results across the UK. How can that be right? How can train operating companies be rewarded for abject failure?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

There were plenty of questions to be getting on with there. I am afraid that I am not aware of the loophole that the noble Baroness referred to. I will take that back to the department and write to her with an explanation of how that is included in the performance figures and whether or not we are able to improve the communications with passengers so that they know that trains are not running. We know that certainty is always the best option when it comes to running passenger services. The noble Baroness spoke about the performance fee. I am not entirely sure that it was a performance fee; it may have been a management fee. All fees go through an independent process. If payments are made, they are as a result of the contractual and legal obligations that the Government have with the train operating companies.

Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) (Amendment) Order 2022

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her brief introduction. I declare that I shall try to be brief in my remarks.

Is there anywhere in the United Kingdom where these new modes of transport are in operation? Does the Minister know of preparations in any given city, town or region? Is there any estimate of when these modes of transport might come on stream? Following on from that, where does this measure leave batteries and hydrogen—if it does—as means of propulsion for transport?

Paragraph 14.1 on page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“There is no formal periodic review of this statutory instrument.”


That is somewhat inexact. One wonders whether it is on a departmental wing and a prayer. I do not know; the Minister might illuminate us about the department’s intention in this moment.

It is so interesting to see the phrase “guided transport modes”. The Minister was exemplary in her brevity but might she, with the aid of her department, define that further?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. Planning processes for tram systems have always been notoriously complex and the associated costs have always been high. Are the Government reviewing other aspects of the Act in order to simplify it in line with the new sorts of designs that we will see in future because the costs and complexity deter many local councils, for example, from going ahead with schemes? In time this should be transformational because the built infrastructure required for tramways and busways will be so much simpler than it has been in the past, which should make it much easier to implement.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this instrument to allow applications for public transport schemes using non-physical guidance systems via a Transport and Works Act order. The advance of non-physical guidance systems using sensory technologies is an exciting development in the future of transport; indeed, it is so exciting that we have been studying it for at least 20 years. I am pleased that this instrument will allow consultation on their implementation.

Automation has enormous potential for increasing productivity. If harnessed correctly, it can improve the lives of people around the world but, if it is not properly regulated, there are inherent dangers. The safety of all those involved must be paramount. We must also consider how this will impact employment in the transport industry.

Software will be an essential part of such technology. When you look into it, software auditing is much more frightening than one might expect. We all know from the number of times we have to update our computer or our phone what a moving feast this is. Considerable authority has been given to software in the aviation industry. What agency will have the responsibility for approving these systems, particularly on the software side? Will a new agency have to be set up or will we look to organisations that work in safety-critical software industries?

Can the Minister confirm that my concerns will be considered as part of the Transport and Works Act order process? Innovation such as this should be welcomed as part of a well-regulated and well-legislated framework. Will the Minister briefly explain the department’s wider approach to advancing the use of non-physical guidance systems in transport across the UK? I welcome this order and look forward to its implementation, as well as to the development of new transport systems using this technology.

Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars, Vans and Heavy Duty Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. It is a matter of supporting the 2022 regulations. It is clean, green and 21st-century. I rise on the principle that the Executive should always be questioned by the Back-Bencher—by the legislature. That is a parliamentary principle of long standing, and I am simply taking this opportunity, knowing that time is of the essence.

Paragraph 7.1 of the helpful Explanatory Memorandum, on the policy background, is very blunt and to the point. Paragraph 12.5, under the heading “Rationale”, is a helpful foundation statement, which no doubt the department has worked hard to produce.

What is the department’s estimate of the number of vehicles on our roads that now follow the April 2019 regulations of the EU Parliament and the EU Council? I presume that many do not—and legally. I am sure the Minister will tell me in her reply.

The Minister mentioned consultations, which is a big plus. In proposing these regulations, what consultations has she had with the Mayor of London? Maybe there were none.

Looking at the road vehicles EU exit regulations—they are numbered “XXX”—I found them a bewildering plethora of initials. In a way, they are as long as Hilary Mantel’s novels and quite bewildering in their detail—but this is a detailed issue. The DVLA is a huge employer in greater Swansea. As a member of my noble friend Lord Kinnock’s shadow Cabinet, I recollect that we heard proposals to move the DVLA to England. They never materialised, of course—it would not have been seen as a positive move—but, without a doubt, the DVLA is a major employer. All of Britain much depends on it. Can the Minister say how many people are now employed at the DVLA in Morriston, Swansea?

Lastly, in paragraph 7.8 on page 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, there are quite a few references, direct or otherwise, to the Secretary of State’s powers. Considerable influence is being granted there. The Minister might wish to indicate why that should be so. Also, in paragraph 6.21, we see the word “probably”. That is not very exact; perhaps we could have a reply on that via officials, if not directly from the Minister. That paragraph also contains the phrase “in the time available”. That seems somewhat up in the air; perhaps it is slipping through without explanation, in that sense. Time is of the essence. The Minister was persuasive and comprehensive. I conclude.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I suggest to her that it should be obligatory for any of her ministerial colleagues who thought that Brexit was a good idea to read through these regulations line by line. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jones, on his determination in managing to do that because it really is a pretty mind-bending process to come to terms with this instrument.

This is a classic case of many hours of lawyers’ time having already been spent, and even more hours of manufacturers’ and retailers’ time being needed in future months and years, to get detailed but essential standards transposed from EU law in UK/Great Britain law and for everyone involved to understand exactly how they will work. The Explanatory Memorandum explains that, for very good reasons, there will have to be delays and waivers for some regulations as manufacturers desperately try to get to grips with a complex new situation.

For that reason, I am amazed that no full impact assessment has been made. This issue affects everyone from major manufacturers to the hundreds of small producers who supply them. Fifteen organisations were consulted and managed to produce 69 responses—that was pretty clever as a response rate, I thought—yet the financial impact of this measure is supposed to be less than £5 million. That is just ridiculous.

There is a side issue among the real pot-pourri of issues in this document, which is a totally different factor: the removal of the maximum height for HGVs. We have discussed this here before and I am aware that Network Rail is very concerned by the impact of bridge strikes on their services. This height relaxation will inevitably mean more bridge strikes. What consultation has been undertaken with Network Rail about the now permanent relaxation of HGV heights?

--- Later in debate ---

I accept that there are a number of dates in here, but this is a very large industry that is well aware of the dates by which it has to do certain things.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, and I mentioned the powers going to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister tell us a little more about the advice that will go to the Secretary of State? It is all fine so long as we are piggybacking on EU standards, but surely the Government are not going to all this effort just to permanently piggyback on EU standards. The Government clearly want to diverge and if we are to do so, there has to be a sound technological basis for it.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

No, that is not quite right. We are not piggybacking on EU standards, because EU standards are underpinned by UNECE standards and the UNECE has nothing to do with the EU. They underpin EU standards and will underpin our standards. Changing UNECE standards involves lengthy negotiations and discussions and technical experts all getting together to make improvements in our system.

Historically, when we go into UNECE negotiations, advice is provided to Ministers in the normal fashion with various experts saying, “Minister, this should be our negotiating position”, and we go in there and try to get our position. We are a leader in that group as we have very strong technical expertise in the field of vehicle manufacturing. When a decision is made, it is a bit like the European Commission: we are not losing any oversight at all here, because that decision would have gone through the European Commission with no oversight by Parliament either.

I am happy to write with more information as to what the process would be should the technical standards change and we need to change our type-approval system, but I cannot imagine that it would be significantly different from what already happens when we approach the UNECE to make technical changes.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was right when he summed up and said that this is continuity and not a change of policy. There is no change of policy here; there is no change in terms of the carbon dioxide emissions. We are maintaining the standards for carbon dioxide emissions, and we are maintaining the standards within the type-approval system. The simple fact is that this is very technical and many of the names are changed—and no more.

I believe that I have covered engagement, so I hope that I have covered all the questions I am currently able to, but I will write a letter. I beg to move.

Swing Bridges

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

We do not go to the level of setting mandatory maintenance schedules, but we work with various organisations within the world of highways maintenance. For example, through various channels, we have produced Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure: A Code of Practice, which we developed with the UK Roads Leadership Group. Assets such as swing bridges are very rare and each is usually unique, so setting out more detailed maintenance requirements may be counterproductive.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the commercial use of waterways; for example, the use of water freight for the construction of Crossrail, the Northern line extension and the Thames Tideway tunnel. Those three projects alone took over 350,000 lorry journeys off our roads. Therefore, the importance of waterways for reducing carbon emissions from freight transport is considerable, yet the Government’s Maritime 2050 strategy ignored the contribution of inland waterways to the reduction of carbon emissions and the issue of freight costs. What will the Government do to address that omission in departmental planning and strategy?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, my department has a fund that exists solely to encourage freight off the roads and on to waterways. It is top of mind; we encourage our own delivery bodies to ensure that they use a variety of modes to transport construction materials. That includes inland waterways, as the noble Baroness has pointed out. If it is not in the maritime strategy, that is not because it is not a priority; perhaps it simply did not fit.

Midlands Rail Hub

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I do not accept that. It is right that the Government go through the business case process. As the noble Lord will know, the outline business case is very important in ensuring that the project can be considered alongside other rail projects and then, potentially, put into the RNEP.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, Britain invented and developed the world’s first railways, and we were authors of amazing feats of engineering across the world, but the World Economic Forum now places us 29th in the global rankings for the quality of our railways. The Government’s endless U-turns on major rail projects—HS2, the integrated rail plan, the Oxford to Cambridge link, the trans-Pennine and many more—have wasted millions, even billions, of pounds. Can the Minister give us an assurance that on Thursday, the Chancellor will not be picking on capital investment in this carbon-reducing form of public transport as a way of saving money following the recent disasters affecting the economy?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Obviously, I cannot pre-empt what the Chancellor is going to say on Thursday; what I can say is that the Government are committing and will commit to record investment in our rail services and infrastructure. Projects such as the integrated rail plan are incredibly important—they unlock potential—and the Government are committed to delivering it. We will be looking at the options for high-speed to Leeds, and we intend to publish the terms of reference for the route study to Leeds after the Autumn Statement

Drivers’ Hours, Tachographs, International Road Haulage and Licensing of Operators (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly raise some points that follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said. They were raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and are just to put my mind at rest.

In particular, on page 16 of its 10th report the committee raised a number of questions in paragraph Q2. The department seems to agree that these questions are causing some concern, and has confirmed that industry raised these concerns. The committee asked:

“What are industry’s concerns, is it the cost of the new equipment or are there supply issues that will make compliance by the deadline set difficult?”


In its answer, the department says that it is both: the cost of the new equipment and meeting the deadline. Can my noble friend the Minister put my mind at rest on whether the cost issue has now been resolved? Given that the department realises that there will be “only a few months” before the supply and installation “into newly registered vehicles”, can she confirm that the deadline will be met, or will the department be fairly flexible and allow them more time in this regard?

The department says:

“If there is a supply issue it would be felt at European level not just in the UK.”


But obviously the House is concerned about how that is to be addressed in this country. I therefore ask for confirmation: how does the department expect to address this issue of supply? Are we perhaps getting a little ahead of ourselves and should the deadline for when they should be fitted be a little more flexible than it has been?

The department says in its concluding paragraph on question 2:

“The Department will work with industry to raise awareness of the new requirement.”


Perhaps my noble friend will be good enough to tell us how that is to be achieved.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who pays such good attention to government legislation. Some of my comments will reflect his concerns. This is possibly our third attempt at transposing various bits of EU tachograph rules into post-Brexit British law.

I want to use this opportunity, reflecting the noble Lord’s concerns, to express the fact that I am seriously concerned that some bright ministerial spark in a recent Government thought it a good idea to put a sunset clause on all EU law now transposed on to our statute book. That will mean that we have to go through it all over again, having spent so many months on it.

I feel great sorrow for and sympathy with officials and the Minister for the amount of time they must be devoting to finding neat, or less neat, solutions to this issue. It must be a depressing and nugatory experience. Even worse, it is one that, in this case, the business community is queuing up to oppose because it makes its job even harder. I wish we had time to look at the future of transport, as it needs legislation, and plan for the future rather than re-treading the past.

Turning to the detail of this SI, I have some questions and comments. Paragraph 3.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that it was originally laid on 23 June then withdrawn on 29 June. Can the Minister explain why it was withdrawn? Was it connected to the lack of version 2 of the smart tachograph? The new smart tachographs are superior because they allow better data exchange so that enforcement officers can download data without stopping the vehicle. It will also be more difficult to falsify the data in future.

If I have understood correctly, it seems that there will be no obligation for older UK vehicles making only domestic trips to have the updated tachographs. Only vehicles travelling to the EU will have to have them. If so, effectively we will have two standards applied to vehicles on our roads. These standards are very much connected, as the Minister made clear, with safety. Driving safely is an issue not only for drivers going to the EU; driving as safely as possible affects every driver on our roads and the tachograph is an essential part of that. I am concerned that we are going to have two separate standards of enforcement and two separate standards of evidence available to enforcement officers. I am also concerned that we will be allowing many people participating in our haulage industry to lag behind the rest of Europe on safety standards.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, refers to concerns on timing. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made clear, this SI has been subject to a report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. In appendix 2, it states that the

“main tachograph manufacturer will not gain type approval for their version 2 until April 2023”.

Merchant Shipping (Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships) Order 2022

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the purpose of this order is to give the Government the powers we need to implement amendments to the International Maritime Organization’s International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, 2001—which I will refer to as the convention—into law. The order relies on powers in Section 128(1)(e) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The draft order was laid before the House on 17 October 2022. If approved, the powers in the order will be used to make a new statutory instrument next year to implement the convention amendments. The order will also allow the convention to be entirely reimplemented in regulations, should that be necessary.

Before continuing, I will give some background on what the Government have done regarding the convention and outline our reasons for wanting to implement amendments to it. I reiterate that the draft order before your Lordships’ House is a mechanism to provide the powers for the implementation of amendments to the convention, rather than an instrument to implement the amendments themselves. Any subsequent secondary legislation using powers under this order to implement the amendments will come before your Lordships’ House in the usual way and following a public consultation.

The convention entered into force internationally on 17 September 2008 and the United Kingdom acceded to it in 2010. It aims to protect the marine environment and human health from the adverse environmental effects of anti-fouling systems used by ships. An anti-fouling system is a coating, paint or surface treatment that is used by a ship to control or prevent the attachment of unwanted organisms to that ship. The convention addresses the harmful impacts of anti-fouling systems by prohibiting the use of certain substances in those systems. In 2021, the International Maritime Organization adopted amendments to the convention to prohibit the use of a new compound in anti-fouling systems, and these will come into force on 1 January.

As the convention took effect 14 years ago, noble Lords may ask why the Government are only now seeking powers to implement amendments to it. The reason for this is that the convention was already implemented, and therefore enforced, in the UK by a combination of a European Commission regulation and the Merchant Shipping (Anti-Fouling Systems) Regulations 2009. However, both these instruments derive from EU powers and now comprise EU retained law. Consequently, implementing the convention amendments relating to this one new substance through these instruments would now require primary legislation. Therefore, to implement these amendments more efficiently into UK law, we need to introduce an Order in Council to provide the powers required for this purpose, which we will then do. The Government consider that the implementation of the convention amendments into law is an important step to ensure that the UK continues to comply with its international obligations.

The convention and its subsequent amendments were negotiated at the IMO by representatives of the Government, the shipping industry and environmental interest groups. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency, or MCA, played an active role in the negotiations at the IMO throughout the development of the convention and its amendments. The Government’s proposals for implementing the amendments to the convention by way of a new statutory instrument will be the subject of a public consultation.

Noble Lords will recall that the House considered something similar some time ago, when we looked at Section 128(1)(e) of the 1995 Act as a mechanism to change the regulations by secondary legislation when it comes to matters relating to pollution. That, in essence, is what we are doing again; we are giving ourselves a power to introduce secondary legislation when there are amendments to the anti-fouling convention.

I hope that that is fairly straightforward, but I am content to answer any of noble Lords’ questions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. Clearly, we welcome any steps to prohibit the use of harmful chemicals in anti-fouling systems. The sooner those steps are taken, the better.

As the Minister said, this relates to a convention and decisions taken some considerable time ago. It gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to implement the 2001 convention and subsequent amendments. I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, she gave an explanation that related to the need to use different powers at this point because we have now left the EU, whereas we relied previously on EU legislation. I therefore wish to quibble about paragraph 8.1 in the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“This … does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union”.


It does relate to withdrawal from the EU, as so much does, and it is worth explaining how.

Secondly, the Minister referred—I think, though I might have misheard—to getting the regulations on the statute book by next year. Is that what she was saying? I very much hope that that is the case and that the department is being ambitious on this. I would not like to see this legislation—which should surely be uncontroversial—going to the back of the maritime queue. The sooner it can be done, the better. Having made those brief comments, I support the SI.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose and objectives of this SI, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001. The objective of the convention is to protect the marine environment and the health of human beings from the adverse effects of anti-fouling systems. It does this by prohibiting the use of certain substances in these systems, or at least prohibiting their use on the outer coating of the hull of a ship.

As has been said, the convention was adopted in 2001 and came into force internationally in 2008. It was implemented by the UK through the adoption by the European Commission of a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of 2003, and by a further regulation in 2009. An annexe to the convention prohibits the use of specified substances in anti-fouling systems, including an additional new specified substance which is prohibited from the beginning of next year.

According to the Explanatory Memorandum,

“the Convention will protect United Kingdom waters from harmful effects of the use of prohibited substances on United Kingdom ships and non-United Kingdom ships visiting the United Kingdom.”

I assume that this is the case, but could I check that the convention applies equally in international waters?

As has been said, on the face of it, the provisions of the convention have taken a long time to be brought into effect. Although the Minister did go some considerable way to answering the point, it would be helpful to have it confirmed again, so I will repeat the question: is that the reality, and if so why? Or is the reality, as I believe it to be, that the terms of the convention have been applied in UK waters for some years, and that the reason this SI is needed relates to our withdrawal from the EU, despite, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum maintaining that this instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union?

The fact that the instrument appears related to our withdrawal from the European Union is strengthened by the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum states that no impact assessment has been prepared because the instrument

“has no impact on the cost to business”,

including small businesses. That presumably means that no expenditure is considered necessary by any party affected to meet the terms of any regulations the Government might make to give effect to the convention. Or is the argument that it is the regulations the Secretary of State will make that will incur additional costs and not this instrument, which enables the Secretary of State to make such regulations, which is why the Explanatory Memorandum says that there is no impact on the cost to business?

HS2: Wales

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his service on the Select Committee—I know that these Bills can sometimes be very large indeed. That for phase 2b, the western leg, is in the other place at the moment, and a Select Committee is being put in place. The Government remain committed to delivering HS2, as the Secretary of State set out in his update to Parliament last month.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, in her answer to the noble Baroness, the Minister had an interesting new interpretation of the way in which the Barnett formula works. In the past, it has always been possible to track through how much Barnett money would come, and why. It has not been possible in this case to detect Barnett formula money as a result of HS2. Can the Minister explain to us exactly how much Wales has received in Barnett consequentials as a result of this project, and when that money was received and why?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

As I tried to explain, the Government take an overarching approach, as heavy rail infrastructure is the responsibility of the Government in England and Wales. But if one looks at rail investment in Wales, one can see that we are investing record amounts already. In CP6, we have invested £2 billion in Wales alone, which includes £1.2 billion in renewals and upgrading infrastructure and £373 million for rail enhancements.

West Coast Main Line

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am not entirely sure where the noble Lord gets those figures from, because my understanding is that on weekdays between 7 am and 9 am—for example, between Birmingham and London—the services are actually at pre-pandemic levels. Of course, there have been changes to the timetable at some other points, but that is very much down to changes in travel habits, such that the system needs to have a demand-led timetable so that we can ensure that people can travel when they need to.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

If I were a nurse and decided to work only half my contracted hours and demanded to be paid my full salary, I would be rejected out of hand. Yet Avanti has essentially done this: it has provided less than half its service to some major cities, but it is still paid the standard contract fee. I ask the Minister: why are DfT contracts written so loosely that it is still entitled to that?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I think it is absolutely right, as I said earlier, that the performance is subject to independent  adjudication. If there is any action to be taken by the DfT, we would follow the legal and contractual processes. We are aware that there is an opportunity to improve our contracting as we move forward and that is why we hope to move to passenger service contracts in due course to encourage competition and enable services to run as they should.

Merchant Shipping (Safety Standards for Passenger Ships on Domestic Voyages) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a moment. I pick up a thread raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the time that this has taken since the “Marchioness” disaster. The Minister will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that I chair has been concerned about the backlog of regulations that await promulgation by her department. The then Minister, Robert Courts, came to talk to us and gave a very impressive report on how action would be taken to close this gap, bring forward the regulations and make sure that we are up to date in all respects.

I am not asking my noble friend to give an answer now; that would be unfair. However, it would be helpful if she could go back to her department and let noble Lords who have participated in this debate know what progress has been made in bringing the department up to date. It has been a—if I may use the police phrase—“serial offender” in this regard. I am not asking her to tell us now, because it is not part of the issue tonight, but it would be helpful for us to know what progress is being made.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for drawing our attention and concern to the situation behind these regulations. I thank the Minister for her introduction and for an excellent impact assessment, which I know her department will have been working on for a long time. I also draw attention to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which expressed our deep concern very effectively and succinctly.

As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made clear, this all relates to—perhaps we should say “was sparked by”—events 33 years ago: the “Marchioness” disaster in 1989. There were 130 people on board, of whom 51 died. It is a source of national disgrace that it has taken this long to get to this point. I lay no blame at the Minister’s door. We are at last getting to the end of this horrendous saga, but the fact that there was no inquiry in 2000, and that it has taken 22 years since then to get to this final stage, should be a source of concern to all of us. This relates to very old ships that predate 26 May 1965—which, if I can be personal for a moment, was my 17th birthday. That gives your Lordships a perspective on how old the ships are that are affected by these regulations.

The interesting thing that is revealed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report is that there are still large numbers of these ships being used. Some 600 vessels will be required to make changes to their fire protection equipment, 285 will need to comply with life raft requirements, and 86 will need to comply with life jacket requirements. Those numbers are significant. As a nation, we have a fascination for old vessels. I live in south Wales and we are endlessly interested in the paddle steamer trips between south Wales and north Devon. I see the noble Lord, Lord Davies, nodding because he is well aware of that.

We are all familiar with the details of the tragedy of the “Titanic”. I realise that it would not have been affected because it was not in inland waters. However, the point I am making is that what horrifies us about that disaster are the details—and one detail that everyone picks up on is that there were not enough life rafts for the number of people on that ship. If the people who enjoy trips on historic vessels nowadays realised that they do not need to have life jackets for everyone on board, I am sure that they would be horrified, and probably it would reduce the number of customers they have. So I say to the Minister, “Be strong in the face of opposition to this”. To those people who think that they cannot afford to do it, I say, “You can’t afford not to”. They must provide modern and effective means of saving lives.

Of course we all support this, but I will finish very briefly by echoing the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I am worried that even more time will elapse before this has to be introduced. We have had 33 years to think about this. The idea that it will take even longer to be done worries me considerably. I urge the Minister to ensure that there is no question of the Secretary of State’s discretion being brought into play to delay it even further. I cannot envisage why anyone owning a ship such as this and using it should not be prepared to make what seem to be fairly limited adjustments and modifications to bring it up to modern safety standards. So I support this entirely.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this SI, my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his amendment, and all Peers who have taken part in this discussion.

This instrument, to apply safety requirements to certain passenger vessels built before 1965, has my full support, but my noble friend is right to ask why it has not been brought forward until now. These are important requirements relating to fire safety, bilge alarms, lifeboats, lights and life jackets, which have been called for over recent decades. I hope that the Minister will explain why they have not been introduced sooner. Until now, the regulations have applied only to vessels built since 2010, which has left over 600 vessels not meeting the standard.

I hope that the Minister can account for the delay and confirm whether the department has received reports of any safety incidents which may have otherwise been prevented had this instrument been brought forward sooner. Can the Minister also confirm whether any further vessels are in any way exempt? Finally, what steps will the department take to monitor compliance with these regulations?