HS2: Electricity Supply

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

I thank my noble friend for his question and I share his desire to ensure good value for money for taxpayers and indeed passengers. The advice given in the KPMG report is that while the wholesale price for electricity is forecast to increase over the long term, the price of renewable energy is coming down, so it recommended signing a long-term contract for the supply of renewable electricity. I should reiterate that the report represents only advice to HS2. No decision has been made and, before any contract is signed, HS2 will need to present the proposed energy strategy to the DfT. Whatever strategy is agreed, HS2 Ltd will be required to demonstrate that it has complied with the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, this Question highlights the fact that HS2 will be an electrified railway, which is much more environmentally friendly and cheaper to operate than a diesel line. The Government have recently abandoned or deferred major mainline railway electrification projects. Will they now restore those projects and put them on the same footing, electrification-wise, as HS2? Further, will they confirm that they will proceed with HS2 north of Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, we have had to take some difficult decisions on electrification, which we are bringing forward where it is in the interests of passengers. I confirm that we are absolutely committed to continuing HS2 north of Birmingham. It is going to bring great connectivity to our great cities of the north.

Air Traffic Management (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Monday 25th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Again, I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of this SI. As before, some of the points that I wanted to raise were touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

The first relates to paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, to which the noble Baroness referred—particularly the reference to,

“pan-European functions including ANS delivered by more than one State … being removed”.

I, too, would like to know the actual impact of that. Does it compromise safety in any way, and what does it mean in practical terms from our point of view as a nation?

Paragraph 7.9 refers to Eurocontrol, which it says is,

“an intergovernmental organisation that provides some ANS for its member States”.

It says:

“It is not an EU body but it has been designated as the”,


single European sky,

“Network Manager and is regulated by the EU where it provides services to EU Member States. The UK will remain a contracting State of Eurocontrol after it leaves the EU and will still be able to receive its services as a contracting party to the Eurocontrol Convention”.

Can the Minister explain the exact impact of that on us, bearing in mind that it is designated as the single European sky network manager and we will no longer be part of the EU? What does it mean for us as far as regulation is concerned? Presumably it does not leave everything exactly the same as it is now, but at the moment I am struggling to identify precisely what the change might be. Any assistance that the Minister can give on that will be appreciated.

Paragraph 7.12 talks about the network manager role. It says:

“These functions pre-date the EU exercising its competence for ANS and the UK would still be able to access Eurocontrol’s wider network management role as a contracting State of the Eurocontrol Convention”.


However, it then says:

“This instrument will amend the preserved SES Legislation relating to airspace in an operable form, but the UK will be unable to participate in EU governance arrangements of the SES Network Manager”.


What will our Government’s arrangements for the network manager be? If Eurocontrol is the SES network manager and that no longer applies to us, am I right in saying that we have to set up some sort of similar arrangement, or have I misunderstood exactly what this means and what its implications are?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has already said, paragraph 7.13, which talks about functional airspace blocks, refers to the fact that the UK formed an FAB with the Republic of Ireland in 2009. Paragraph 7.14 then goes on to say:

“The legislation establishing FABs will not be retained in the SES EU Exit Regulations. As a non-Member State after exiting the EU, the UK will have no legal basis to participate in a FAB”.


My question is not dissimilar to that posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I simply ask: if we are no longer able to participate in an FAB but have one with the Republic of Ireland, what will the impact of this be on 29 March under a no-deal Brexit? What exactly does it mean and what are its implications? Do we have an FAB only with the Republic of Ireland or do we have a number of others and, if so, what is the impact on, or implication for, those further FABs?

The document also refers in paragraph 7.16 to changes being made in the SI,

“so that the Member State functions in the regulation are retained and instead carried out by the CAA who will now oversee the implementation of the regulation”—

that is, these regulations. Bearing in mind that it specifically refers to a change being made in the SI, is this the only such change of significance in it or are there others that perhaps might not have been highlighted in the same way?

Paragraph 7.19, on the subject of ATM safety, refers to the fact that the,

“SES Legislation relating to safety forms our current mechanism … so that legislation will need to be preserved in UK law in an operable form to maintain continuity in safety. In doing this we are giving some oversight functions to the CAA which were previously for EASA”.

Am I right in saying that this means an additional interface on safety issues? If I am right, does the Minister agree that that is hardly a desirable development, since the more interfaces you have over safety, presumably potentially—I stress “potentially”—the more difficult safety issues can become? It would be helpful to have the Minister’s comments on that issue.

The Minister referred in her introduction to the SESAR programme, which is the single European sky air travel management research programme. Paragraph 7.25 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that,

“the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) was set up under a Council Regulation to manage”,

the research and development programme. The paragraph goes on to say:

“As the UK will no longer be able to participate in the SJU after leaving the EU the Council Regulation setting up the SJU will be revoked”.


What exactly are the potential consequences of this as far as research and development are concerned? I believe the Minister said that we have played an active role within it. Will we inevitably be able to play only a less active role? From our point of view, is there likely to be less involvement in research and development programmes?

Perhaps the Minister can confirm—I am sure there will be no difficulty, since the Minister in the Commons has already said so—that on SESAR funding, if there is a no-deal exit the Government will underwrite what would have been paid to the UK under the current arrangements, to provide certainty and continuity for those involved. Paragraph 7.26 indicates that the pilot common project will continue, saying that there will be,

“legislation to require UK project participants who have been implementing it since 2014 to complete the delivery of projects which will maintain interoperability with the UK’s neighbouring States”.

Presumably, the fact that it refers to one project suggests that withdrawing in this way means that there will be other projects with which we will not continue, or will not get involved when they commence. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether I am right; that hardly seems a desirable situation.

I turn to paragraph 10 on “Consultation outcome” and ask once again: were the trade unions involved in the consultation? References are made to various stakeholders. I do not know whether that includes the trade unions but, again, I would like to know the answer to that question. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned that the consultation paragraph refers to a view among stakeholders supporting,

“continuity in terms of the regulatory framework for ATM after the UK leaves”,

the European Union. The paragraph ends:

“The preparation of the instrument also takes account of representations from operational stakeholders on the impacts of the UK leaving the EU or ATM and ANS including from NATS, the UK’s en route air traffic services provider”.


Can the Minister tell us what those representations were? Were they simply representations in relation to continuity or were other matters taken into account in preparing this instrument? If so, in what way does the instrument reflect those further representations?

[Baroness Sugg]

I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations and turn to some of the questions raised. On participation in the UK-Ireland functional airspace block—the FAB—it is currently the only FAB we are part of but, in the event of no deal, there would be no legal basis for the UK to continue to participate in it; nor could we compel Ireland to be part of it, so we have not been able to retain this part of the single European sky legislation in the SI. There is a possibility that EU states could involve neighbouring third countries in their functional airspace blocks and future UK involvement as a third country would be discretionary.

Co-ordination and co-operation with Ireland will of course continue, as both states are members of the international inter-government organisation Eurocontrol and, indeed, ICAO; both the UK and Ireland are delegated by ICAO to provide air traffic services in parts of the north Atlantic. The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that 80% of traffic entering or leaving the EU from the north Atlantic flies through that airspace, so it is imperative that we work together on this.

Aviation Security (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Monday 25th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

I am not able to give the noble Lord that reassurance as we are not sure how EU regulations will develop. However, we are of course committed to maintaining our high security record. As has been mentioned, we already have more stringent measures and that will continue.

On the more stringent measures and the Commission decision, the Aviation Security Act gives the Secretary of State powers to give directions to or serve notices on specified parties—for example, directly to air carriers or airports—for the purpose of discharging his aviation security responsibilities. The single consolidated direction is a compilation of the various directions and, after the UK exits from the EU, the single consolidated direction will continue to refer to the retained EU legislation, supplemented already, as I have said, by the more stringent measures. This is essential to maintaining our existing aviation standards, which will be continually assessed and modified, where necessary, to reflect the current threat picture.

The single consolidated direction will also be used to set out the content of the Commission decision, and the content decision will continue not to be published. The information was not published before and will not be published in the future. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns about that but, obviously, if more details were out there on the specifics of what was needed for aviation security that would put us at risk—for example, the specifications of screening equipment, the volume of detection, the criteria for the random testing of airport supplies, details of the exact screening requirements such as what percentage of passengers are checked, and the green list for aviation security. There is no change in this.

[Lord Rosser]

I appreciate that there are security issues involved—I do not pretend otherwise and the Minister may think this unnecessary—but is it still not possible for the Secretary of the State to publish something at least saying what general areas the regulations or amendments he has made cover without being specific about what they said?

[Baroness Sugg]

That would be a new development. As I say, the SI ensures that we continue what we have done previously. However, I will take back the noble Lord’s suggestion to consider whether in the future we could do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked who will be inspecting the CAA, the Secretary of State and airports after exit day. We will continue to maintain our high standards. We will be part of the ICAO and may have EU inspections for one-stop security purposes. This country has an excellent record of aviation security and will continue to have it after we leave the European Union.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about derogation from standards. Some small airports and demarcated areas within airports already have some derogation. That is what we are carrying over. There are no plans to ask for additional derogations.

On civil aviation security equipment manufacturers, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about standards. I point to the European Civil Aviation Conference which, despite its name, is a branch of the International Civil Aviation Organisation and is made up of 44 member states. We will continue to play an active role in ECAC after Brexit and that will include contributing to the development of improved standards on security equipment. ECAC also undertakes testing of aviation security equipment to certify that it meets the required standards. We will maintain that relationship. Any international manufacturer producing such equipment can submit it to ECAC for testing and certification and that is the standard we will continue to use. There should not therefore be any other barriers to UK manufacturers supplying EU airports post EU exit.

On ACC3—this is an important part of the SI—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, it is not our choice that we will no longer be part of this scheme. It is an impact of leaving the European Union without a deal. The scheme is open only to member states and, if we leave without a deal, we will no longer be a member state. This is not a policy choice that we are taking; it is an effect of us leaving if we leave without a deal. That is why we have had to bring in a new system.

We want to minimise disruption and additional burdens on industry while maintaining our standards. That is why we have the new UK ACC3 designation and that will be issued to all carriers and the supply chains which currently hold the EU designation. We have consulted carefully on this and, prior to leaving, the CAA will formally confirm the new UK ACC3 designations for carriers and that will be reflected in the UK ACC3 database. However, as the noble Baroness pointed out, this is a moving feast. There will be new cargo flights for existing designations and, when they are due for renewal, carriers in that instance will have to apply directly to the UK for the new ACC3 designation. In order to manage the new regime we will need to maintain a record of all granted designations. In a no- deal scenario, we will lose access to the EU database that forms the backbone of the EU ACC3, comprising the approved carriers, the entities and the validators. We will need a new system and that is what we have set up. However, we will ensure that that continues to maintain our high security standards and minimises disruption.

In the current system, to which the noble Lord referred, the UK has a responsibility for designating certain destinations to form part of the EU system. That will also be removed and the EU will take on that role.

On compliance and inspection of airports, as I mentioned earlier, the EU has said that it will recognise one-stop security and we expect some EU inspections in the future. However, domestic aviation security compliance is already managed by the CAA and will continue to be so after exit day.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the important issue of costs. As the basic aviation security requirements will not change, any costs to the industry will be minimal. There will be modest administrative costs to air carriers on expiry of their existing designations because of the change in the ACC3 system. We have aimed to minimise additional costs. The evidence required for both systems will remain the same, so carriers should be able to pay for a single independent validation report and submit it to both the UK and EU authorities. There is no direct charge to carriers applying for an EU ACC3 designation and the CAA will not impose a direct charge on that either. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be easier to stay with the same system but, as I say, it is a consequence of leaving with no deal.

On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about how the current system on costs works, the current regulations allow member states to decide how to allocate the costs of aviation security, subject to the relevant rules of Community law. That means that member states do it differently. There are some that use central funding for it. In the UK currently we have the user-pays principle: the costs are borne by the airline and the airports and ultimately passed on to the consumer. Industry meets those costs by virtue of the charging system under Section 11 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, and that arrangement is expected to continue after we leave.

On the cost to government, another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the CAA already has the expertise to assess applications for cargo security designations under what it does in the EU system and it is making appropriate contingency preparations to deliver continuity under that scheme. It has incurred a one-off cost in developing the new database to assist in administration. That cost is around £150,000 and will be funded out of the CAA EU exit programme contingency fund provided by the Department for Transport. There may also be a modest increase in CAA resources required to administer the system in the future. We expect that to be around two full-time posts a year.

I hope that I have answered the majority of the questions. If I have missed any I will follow up in writing. As I have said, delivering a negotiated deal remains our top priority. This SI makes it clear what the benefits of delivering a deal will be and what the implementation period will be. However, in the event of no deal, it is essential to ensure that a crucial part of the regulatory framework for civil aviation continues to work effectively after exit day and that passengers continue to benefit from the level of security we see today.

Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

I knew I would get approval for at least something I said. I take this opportunity, after a fairly long evening, to express my thanks to the Minister for dealing with these SIs in her usual good-natured and patient manner.

[Baroness Sugg]

I thank noble Lords for their consideration of the final regulations of this evening. International conventions require each flag state administration to approve marine equipment, and once we have left the EU it would not be appropriate for the UK to fulfil its international obligations through an EU system that we can no longer influence. That is why we are setting up the UK system. It will allow the 10 UK-based conformity assessment bodies to continue offering services to the UK market. If we allowed only EU-approved equipment, those bodies would be in the strange position of having to relocate to the EU to provide to the UK market.

We understand that we need to ensure that the UK bodies can continue to offer EU-approved equipment. The new regulations apply both to existing ships and new ships, which will all be able to use either EU-approved equipment or UK-approved equipment. That does not have a time limit currently. The Government will consider whether we should move towards the UK system, but that would be done only after very careful consideration and consultation with the industry.

There will be no reduction in standards under the regulations. As I said in my opening statement, they retain the existing international standards set at IMO level, and that is what we will stick to. They apply the same familiar process and procedures to marine equipment approvals, to minimise disruption to industry. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, noted, some of the 10 UK-based EU-notified bodies have a global client base—and long may that continue. They are global operations and have offices internationally. We anticipate that some of the UK-based notified bodies with offices in the EU will make contingency plans to enable them to maintain their EU-notified body status, but we have no information about any of the UK-based notified bodies moving there. These are global companies that provide to a global market, and we expect them to be able to continue to do so.

Both the EU system and the new UK system are established on IMO standards, so manufacturers do not need to produce to two standards. A UK manufacturer may maintain its existing EU approval and keep EU market access, while also maintaining UK market access.

No formal consultation has been done on this instrument, but the MCA and the department regularly meet the assessment bodies and the manufacturers. Both groups recognise that the regulations are needed to maintain the status quo, and I am pleased to be able to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on our final SI this evening, that both the UK Chamber of Shipping and Nautilus, the seafarers union, are participants in the MCA industry committees, and have been consulted. These meetings occur very frequently, every three to six months.

This statutory instrument is necessary: if the House does not approve it, there will be no legal basis for UK notified bodies to continue operating in the country. The companies and those who work for them would therefore face uncertainty. If this SI were not approved, we would not be able to accept equipment from the EU or investigate non-compliance. So it is essential. We have not carried out a full impact assessment of the regulations because their purpose, intent and real-world effect is to do everything possible to minimise cost and disruption. Noble Lords should be aware that the impacts and costs to business of not making these regulations would be significantly higher—as I said, it would lead to uncertainty.

I hope that I have managed to address the points that have been raised. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the transport SI debates. I am genuinely grateful for their scrutiny; these are important pieces of secondary legislation, and the House is certainly doing its job in scrutinising them. Marine equipment approvals are, of course, vital to ensuring the safety of those on board ships and the protection of the marine environment. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this SI is essential to ensure that the legislation on marine equipment approvals will continue to work effectively in the UK in the event of no deal.

Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

I will go through it in detail. A number of the provisions and offences in Part VI of the Transport Act are being amended to ensure that the AETR is fully applied in the UK, as I mentioned earlier. The existing measures, which make provision in relation to the EU regulation, are amended so as also to refer to the AETR provision: Section 96, which contains the offences of non-compliance with the EU and AETR drivers’ rules; Section 97C, which requires drivers to provide tachograph records to employers; Section 97G, which requires operators to ensure the data is downloaded from tachographs; Section 97H, which requires the production to an officer of downloaded tachograph data; and Section 99ZE, which prohibits the creation of false tachograph records and data. Those are the criminal offences being amended to make sure they are in line with the AETR rules.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

This relates to what my noble friend said. I intended to say it when I made my contribution, but perhaps I could just say it now. Paragraph 6.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that Part 2,

“creates three new offences and amends two existing offences to ensure that there are adequate enforcement provisions”.

I accept that if I had read the document more thoroughly, I might know the answer to this question, but what specifically are the three new offences referred to?

[Baroness Sugg]

I was just coming on to those new offences. The new criminal offences are all under the Transport Act. The first is the failure to install or use a tachograph in accordance with the AETR requirements for in-scope vehicles. The second, in Section 97ZB, is the supply of tachograph equipment that has not been or is no longer type-approved by the relevant authorities. The final new offence, in Section 97ZC, is the failure by a tachograph manufacturer to inform the Secretary of State of known security vulnerabilities in its product. As I said, in particular the provisions around the AETR agreement will be increasingly important as this international agreement takes the place of the existing EU regulations. In the course of the legal analysis work to prepare this EU exit SI, these were the new criminal offences identified as needed. It is particularly important to make sure that the AETR regulatory regime is fully functioning for exit day.

The necessary legal amendments do not modify the substantive regulatory obligations placed on drivers and operators subject to the rules. In the event of a deal, as set out in the draft political declaration, for road transport the UK and the EU intend to develop market access arrangements underpinned by appropriate common standards, including driving time limits. Obviously, that is where we hope to get to, but in the event of us leaving without a deal these regulations are needed. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I will make one or two comments on this SI and ask the Minister to repeat a couple of things she has already said.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to the three new offences and the amendment to the two existing offences, saying:

“The House may wish to be aware of the creation of new offences using secondary legislation”.


Is the Minister able to give some information—I do not mean an enormous amount—on how frequently DfT uses secondary legislation to create new offences, or to amend existing offences? I am not entirely sure in my own mind the extent to which this is a break from normal practice or simply a continuation of an existing practice which may not be used frequently.

I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the effect of this SI is that there will be no changes to the requirements of the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules, so that what we are being invited to agree to is actually a continuation of the present arrangements.

I do not think the Minister will be too surprised if I ask whether there was any consultation with trade unions. Paragraph 10.1 says:

“Department for Transport Ministers and officials have regular engagement with the road transport industry”.


It would be of some relief if the Minister was able to say to me that, on this issue, that covered the trade unions as well as the other key players within the industry, because it talks, at paragraph 6.5, about creating,

“the equivalent offence of failing to install and use recording equipment”.

Presumably, a driver could be accused of not using the recording equipment, and might, for example, turn it off. To suggest that the drivers of vehicles have no interest at all in what is in this SI is stretching it.

I will leave my comments at that, on the basis that there is no change to the existing arrangements, and that is what this SI is intended to achieve. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on what is in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report about creating new offences using secondary legislation.

[Baroness Sugg]

I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations, and I shall turn to the points raised.

The need for these regulations is incredibly important. On the market access regulations, which the noble Baroness referred to, the international access to the EU for the UK—if there is a no-deal Brexit—would be jeopardised without them. The regulation on the haulage market access currently being discussed envisages the continuation of equivalent rules for drivers’ hours and tachographs and includes draft provisions to reduce or terminate market access without those equivalent provisions, so they are important. Even under the limited access provided by ECMT permits, we also need to adhere to the international standards.

On enforcement, parts of the tachograph rules and the current regime of drivers’ hours offences in the UK would not continue to be enforceable in respect of much of the commercial road transport in the UK. Some of these breaches of the rules are incredibly serious, including the fraudulent manipulation of tachographs, so the rules are important to public safety.

On new powers, in many cases the reference to the Secretary of State is a technical change, but the Secretary of State will have some regulation-making powers, and they are exercisable by negative procedure to replace the Commission’s secondary legislation-making powers. At present, such legislation made by the Commission flows through to the UK automatically as directly applicable EU law. The regulation-making powers are transferred to the Secretary of State in relation to authorising exemptions from driver rules for transport operations carried out in exceptional circumstances, which the noble Baroness referred to. Procedures for field tests of tachograph equipment, setting out standardised reporting forms and specifying the content of the training of control officers, and setting out the technical specifications for tachograph equipment are subject to the negative procedure, due to the nature of the amendments which they would make. They are very specific and technical or apply to exceptional circumstances where we need a swift response. It would only be possible to modify the core regulatory obligations, such as maximum driving times and the requirement to install a tachograph, through primary legislation.

The costs on business will not change as a result of these regulations. The effect of the rules will be the same: behaviours which are legal will continue to be allowed, and behaviours which are illegal will continue to be prohibited. The regulations will enable the enforcement of the rules by the DVSA and the police to continue as at present.

On information exchange, which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised, the provisions are revoked because they relate to co-operation which, in the event of no deal, we sadly cannot guarantee. We would hope, none the less, to be in a position to continue to co-operate with the EU in relation to this sector. That is not an agreement we have reached yet, and we would not be party, for example, to the European Register of Road Transport Undertakings, which is the data exchange on violators, as we would no longer be a member of the EU, but that information flow is important and we would like to see it even in the event of no deal.

This would not affect the enforcement sanctions available. Regardless of Brexit, we are targeting enforcement resources towards offences such as tachograph manipulation, and enforcement against non-UK established hauliers and drivers, which includes the immobilisation of vehicles and fixed penalty notices, is not affected by the regulation or Brexit. We will continue to participate in Euro Contrôle Route, which is not an EU body and is not restricted to EU countries’ enforcement agencies. That organisation is focused on practical law enforcement collaboration and enables the exchanges of good practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

Does the Minister think that the RHA and the FTA are the best representatives of drivers, as opposed to the union they are members of?

[Baroness Sugg]

No, I did not mean to say that. As I said, there will be no change for drivers from these regulations; the rules will stay the same. The EU rules are the same as the AETR rules.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked questions on divergence. We are not committing to following the EU rules. In the future, the Government will consider on a case-by-case basis how the UK might choose to respond to any changes in EU regulations. These regulations do not oblige the Government to remain aligned to the EU rules, but they do oblige the UK to remain aligned to the AETR rules. We are a contracting party to the AETR, and those wider international rules will underpin all transport operations between the UK and the EU after exit. At present, the AETR is aligned to the EU rules: the rules on driving time, rest time and requirements for the use and installation of tachographs are the same.

Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

By leaving the European Union through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, we will take EU legislation on to our statute book. So we are carefully looking at that legislation to make sure that it functions in the best way for us. As I said, this is not intended to make policy changes and is intended to remain aligned with existing standards. But there are more than 3,700 pages of type approvals, and we want to make sure that they function correctly on our statute book. That is a significant piece of work, which we will be doing alongside a formal consultation to make sure that this continues to function.

The consultation on type approval was conducted by discussions and working groups, largely through the main UK trade bodies covering the various categories of vehicle that require type approval. We have had a range of meetings that included members of the SMMT, the Motorcycle Industry Association and the Agricultural Engineers Association. Through these meetings, we refined our proposals and addressed sector-specific issues as well as informing people what is expected in a no-deal scenario. Obviously, we have also spoken to the European trade associations.

[Lord Rosser]

I ask this in a genuine spirit: I hope that the Minister will accept that. If there were meetings and discussions with the bodies that she just mentioned, which are referred to in the EM, did they agree that what is in front of us today maintains the status quo—because they would have been told that that was the objective? Can I just check, because the Minister did not mention it, that the trade unions were not consulted?

[Baroness Sugg]

I am afraid that I do not have an answer on trade unions; I shall have to get back to the noble Lord on that.

The organisations we consulted do not wish for no deal—I should be very clear on that—but we are attempting a pragmatic approach to make sure that we continue trade with the EU should we have a no-deal exit. They are supportive of the proposals. The SMMT told the Lords Select Committee on the EU Internal Market that the department had put in place a system of temporary type approval, initially, which is probably as sensible as we can have during the interim period. The Motorcycle Industry Association confirmed that it had no immediate concern with the proposed text, which it expects to alleviate some of the short-term pressures on manufacturers and importers arising from the UK leaving the European Union without a deal. So I think that it is fair to say that industry does not want no deal but, in the event of no deal, it accepts that this interim measure is the right way forward. We published our technical notice of the changes to type approval last September.

On the question of the cost of type approval asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the total cost to manufacturers of provisional approval is estimated to be around £800,000. That includes their internal administration costs and familiarisation costs. Normally, to obtain type approval for a single model costs at least £250,000, including the hire of test facilities, internal costs and fees to the VCA. It takes the VCA a couple of hours to prepare a UK approval following an application. As noble Lords would expect, the VCA has engaged extensively with industry and is well placed to issue provisional UK approvals. It has recruited additional temporary staff to manage the additional workload. So far, it has taken on 23 additional staff and is on target to have 40 in place by mid-March. The assessment found an estimated annual cost of the VCA of £800,000 per year, which would be recovered from manufacturers—so, combined with the administrative costs of using the scheme, the estimated total cost to business is £1.6 million per year.

Commercial Air Routes: United Kingdom and East Africa

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

Yes, we will. The current slot regime allows for new entrants. The regulations require 50% of available slots to be given to new entrants. The main issue is that there are not very many slots available. This is why we need expansion. There will be more slots available with expansion and with other airports making better use of their existing capacity. Our aim in looking at the slot allocation regime is to ensure competition, which will ultimately benefit the consumer.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, government Ministers talk in enthusiastic terms about the new trade agreements that we will be able to conclude with other countries following Brexit. Will the availability at our major airport of sufficient and appropriate airline slots for direct services to those other countries be an important consideration in successfully concluding such trade deals? If so, do the Government intend to make sure—as opposed to simply talking about it—that such slots are available at Heathrow, or Gatwick at least, in the immediate aftermath of Brexit when, as I understand it, these new trade agreements with other countries will be concluded with considerable rapidity?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, we aim to increase our connectivity across the globe. We have a very experienced team of air services negotiators in our department who work across the world to deliver new air services agreements. Our current approach is to favour as much liberalisation as possible, providing it is in the UK’s national interest. Regardless of the negotiations, Brexit will not deliver new slots, but an increased capacity at Heathrow will do. That will help us increase our links, and increase our trade links, across the world.

Seaborne Freight

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Monday 11th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. On 8 January, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe was told by the Government:

“With Seaborne, the proposal was subject to technical, financial and commercial assurance”.—[Official Report, 8/1/19; col. 2127.]


What were the financial assurances received and from whom? Were the financial assurances given specific, firm, unqualified and in writing, or were they only in the form of an intention or a consideration of giving financial support, as the Statement suggests?

Why was no reference made in the Statement of 8 January to the extensive involvement on the financial side of the Irish company Arklow Shipping? The Government said it was for commercial reasons. What commercial reasons were so important that they overruled the public interest and transparency on a Brexit issue? Perhaps instead it was because the Secretary of State was so determined to have the involvement at all costs of a British shipping company, to avoid the embarrassment of having to rely exclusively on European companies to help us out of a no-deal mess, that he reached this questionable agreement with Seaborne Freight without competitive tendering and then knowingly did not disclose in the Statement that even British Seaborne Freight was dependent on financial backing materialising from an EU-based Irish company? If that is not the case, why was the agreement not reached directly with Arklow Shipping, one of Europe’s largest shipping companies and clearly the intended real power behind Seaborne Freight?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, we have listed the checks carried out as due diligence on the operational suitability of all the bids submitted as part of the department’s procurement of additional freight capacity. They were director searches and basic counterparty financial solvency checks, with technical support provided by Mott MacDonald. Two high-level technical reviews were completed. The first related to the ferry tender and submission compliance within the DfT evaluation process and the second to the technical feasibility of the tendered ferry intervention. Financial analysis was carried out by Deloitte to assess the financial robustness of operators, and price benchmarking by Deloitte to examine the prices offered to DfT in comparison with market rates to enable the assessment of value for money as part of the procurement process.

I explained earlier in the Statement the reasoning behind not mentioning Arklow before. It was for commercial reasons. It would have adversely affected the cost of ships in order to procure the contract. We contracted directly with Seaborne because it was the company that had been working for over a year to provide the service between Ramsgate and Ostend.

Railways: Dawlish

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, this train line has been a long-standing problem ever since it was opened in 1846—that year trains failed to run along it. We are working closely on that and although I am not able to give the noble Lord a date, we are making significant progress. Network Rail has submitted a plan that we are looking at carefully and we hope to make an announcement on it very shortly.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

First, in very bad weather, as has been said, the Voyager trains used by the CrossCountry franchise are often unable to operate west of Exeter, as electrics on the roofs of the trains are adversely affected by salt water coming over the sea wall in the Dawlish area. Will the new Hitachi trains being introduced on the line also be adversely affected by salt water coming over the sea wall? Secondly, Network Rail’s plan for preventing sea damage is, as has been said, to build a new, higher sea wall, in respect of which it has made a planning submission to the relevant local authority, with the knowledge of the Secretary of State. We know the problem is only going to get worse as sea levels rise, so what happens if that planning application is declined? What is plan B? Or is there no plan B?

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord is right to point to the issues we have with CrossCountry trains. The new intercity express trains on GWR were also affected by weather along the Devon coast last week, so we are working very closely with Hitachi to find a solution. As the noble Lord pointed out, there is a planning submission in play and, as I said, we are absolutely determined to come up with a long-term solution to this problem.

Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sugg]

As I said, to make responsible preparations it is important to consider all the different options available to us. Of course we are having conversations with the Commission and the member states about a wide range of issues. I am not able to give further detailed information at this moment but our preference is very strongly for a broader deal which will provide a liberalised agreement with the EU, though there are other options available to us. I hope this provides reassurance that we will continue to see flights between the UK and the EU. We will continue to work towards this as we move towards exit day.

[Lord Rosser]

On bilateral discussions, the European Commission document that we have had—which I appreciate extends across the whole gamut and does not apply just to aviation—says:

“In the same spirit, Member States should refrain from bilateral discussions and agreements with the United Kingdom, which would undermine EU unity”.


It may be that this particular sentence does not apply to air transport. Is it then the case that we are having bilateral discussions in the apparent teeth of opposition from the European Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

Before the Minister sits down, if the document that we have had from the European Commission, specifically the section on air transport, represents the Commission’s stance in the event of no deal—as I understand it, the Minister said we were in discussions with it—what is the latest date by which something has to be agreed so that it is effective from 29 March? Presumably what has been listed here by the European Commission as its position cannot be agreed the day before, and presumably it has to be agreed before then to come into operation on 29 March. So what is the latest date, realistically, by which something has to be agreed?

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord will know that there are many positions on the negotiations. As I said, that is the Commission’s latest position. We are continuing to negotiate with it on the broader future partnership arrangements. Alongside that, we are of course talking to it about no deal too. There is no specific latest date. That is why we need to do this no-deal preparation, so that if it goes close to the date of exit the industry understands what the alternatives are. We are very keen to provide industry with certainty as early as possible.

We have the European Council on Sunday and I expect that there will be an outcome from that. We will then look at what next steps need to be taken. We are very hopeful that the deal is done and will be agreed by Parliament so that we reach our implementation period on 29 March and the industry has that certainty. Should that not be the case, we will of course continue the discussions with the Commission to provide certainty as early as we possibly can. I am very aware, in my many meetings with the aviation sector, of the importance of providing that certainty. That is what this no-deal planning and our continued negotiations with the Commission are about. I beg to move.

International Road Transport Permits (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I too thank the Minister for setting out the content and purpose of these draft regulations and order. I share the concerns already expressed, and will revisit only some of them due to the time constraints that I know we are under today.

The draft international road transport permits regulations are laid, as are the others, under the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018. That Act allows arrangements to be put in place to enable international road haulage to continue after departure from the EU. Those arrangements create a framework for a single permit scheme that will deal with bilateral permit arrangements between the UK and non-EU countries, the multilateral European Conference of Ministers of Transport—ECMT—permit scheme and any future permit scheme that may be agreed with the EU. The draft order also includes provisions on applying for and granting a permit, along with provisions on cancellations, appeals and charging.

As has already been said, the ECMT permit scheme provides for a limited number of permits to be available to the UK. It is not much used at present, as the Community licence covers haulage to EU member states. However, if there is no deal for EU countries, Community licences will no longer be recognised from exit day, in which case UK hauliers will need either an ECMT permit for journeys to, in or through the EU, or a bilateral permit under an existing agreement with an individual EU member state to carry goods to, from or through the territory of that member state. But the number of ECMT permits available is limited, and demand for ECMT is expected to significantly exceed supply. Can the Minister say by how much demand for ECMT permits is expected to exceed supply in the event of no deal, and with which EU states there are existing bilateral agreements covering the carriage of goods—or alternatively, with which EU states there are no existing bilateral agreements?

The Explanatory Memorandum says that these regulations provide for an objective and transparent way of selecting which applications should be allocated permits. But what happens to those applicants who are not allocated permits from the limited number available to the UK? What will be the impact on them, and on our economy? If there is no deal or no satisfactory deal, how many applicants is it expected there will be who will not be able to get either an ECMT permit or a bilateral permit? How many UK hauliers currently have a Community licence? How will the Government assist operators who are not granted a permit and who may experience an adverse impact on their business as a result?

The Government have said that they are working to have bilateral agreements in place by exit day. Is that a bilateral agreement with each EU member state, and are the Government giving an assurance that such agreements with each member state will be in existence and effective by exit day? The Government have said that there are nearly 3,000 monthly ECMT permits. How will the operation of these monthly permits work in practice? Will UK hauliers have to reapply on a monthly basis, and how will the Government assist hauliers who need longer-term plans for their operations than monthly permits can provide?

The regulations grant the Secretary of State discretion to determine the allocation of permits where they are oversubscribed. How will the Government ensure that there is a fair and consistent approach, in particular over “random selection”, which is referred to in the regulations and which has already been referred to in today’s debate.

I will not go into the Trailer Registration Regulations 2018 at any length, except to say that I very much share one of the concerns in particular that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, expressed, on the level of awareness issue.

The road safety financial penalty deposit amendment order 2018 sets out the monetary amount of the financial penalty deposit—the FPD—for specified offences relating to the use of goods vehicles and trailers without the appropriate authorisation, FPDs or registration. FPDs can be taken immediately from a person without a UK address who is believed to have committed a specified offence. A separate order will designate specified offences relating to haulage permits, trailer registration and community licences as FPD offences. The specified offences under the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 relate to failing to produce a permit when required to do so by an examiner, obstructing an examiner or breaching a prohibition on the use of a goods vehicle on an international journey.

Will the Minister say how the conclusion was reached that the level of deposits shown in the SI is appropriate for the offences in question, bearing in mind for example that,

“wilfully obstructing an examiner exercising powers”,

and carrying out an inspection attracts an FPD of just £300; likewise, a similar amount for “breaching a prohibition” or,

“causing or permitting a breach of a prohibition …on taking a vehicle to a country without reasonable excuse”.

We are talking about goods vehicles, trailers and safety issues since this is a road safety order. How wilful has the obstruction of the examiner got to be, and how blatant a breach of a prohibition, before an FPD is not considered appropriate? Once the requirement to pay an FPD has been imposed under the terms of this draft instrument, what further action will be taken in the light of the offence?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. Throughout the passage of the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act there was valuable debate, which allowed us to refine and improve the Act and ensure that it laid out the necessary framework. I am grateful once again for the opportunity to consider the detail of this legislation. I shall attempt to answer all the questions, although I am not sure I will be able to in the time allowed. If there are questions I do not get to, I will follow up in writing.

On the requests for current haulage industry figures: there are 8,400 standard international licences currently in use and 32,000 Community licences. Our figures show that if hauliers were to make one trip per week on each permit, around 20% of current activity by UK HGVs could be facilitated on ECMT permits alone. However, 20% is not enough and we do not expect to rely solely on ECMT permits. These regulations and the published guidance refer only to ECMT permit applications. We do not yet know the outcome of negotiations, so we are not able to provide further information to hauliers on that. Whether with the EU or with member states, it could be that no permits are required at all. In that case, obviously these regulations will not come into force.

I will say a little more on the permit application process—

Railways: East Coast Main Line

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to give a definite date. We are trying to introduce the trains as soon as possible, but there remain issues that we need to work through. LNER has said that it hopes to start introducing the trains early next year. On my noble friend’s point about King’s Cross, we are carrying out essential works on King’s Cross to replace the expired track and signalling to ensure that we can see the full benefits of the east coast main line enhancements.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

It was from the government Dispatch Box that we were told on 23 May this year that:

“The good news also is that we fully expect the new intercity express trains to be introduced on the east coast main line from the end of this year, as planned”.—[Official Report, 23/5/18; col. 1032.]


Is this episode yet another example of the reality that, in our fragmented railway system, no one is in overall charge? No one is ultimately accountable for the performance or lack of it of our national railway network and, as a result, no one accepted responsibility for ensuring that the new trains would start running on the planned date. If the Government disagree that that is the case, then which individual or body was accountable for ensuring that the new trains would start running on the planned date on the east coast main line?

[Baroness Sugg]

Well, that was not me. The noble Lord is quite right to say that in May I gave reassurance that those trains would come into service. At the time, that was very much what we were planning. However, as I said, there have been emerging issues on that which we need to work through. It is not unusual with delivery of a whole new infrastructure—and this is a £2.7 billion investment, which we should welcome—that there are some compatibility issues. We are working through them. On the noble Lord’s point about the rail system, it has been well over a decade since we have seen a large change in the rail network and, while we have seen record private investment and the doubling of passenger journeys, of course it has had its challenges. The time is absolutely right for a comprehensive review, and that is what the rail review will do.

Railways: Fares

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, since privatisation, UK railways have seen a period of incredible growth and passenger journeys have more than doubled. The industry has not been able to keep up with that demand, which is why we are looking at the rail review. It will consider all parts of the rail industry, from the current franchising system to industry structures. That will not stop us continuing to invest in the meantime and seeing more trains with more capacity come on to our lines.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As has been said, the issue is the level of fares. The Government’s line is that their annual new year present to rail users of a fare increase is to finance their rail investment programme. In fact, that is not the case. The reason for the Government’s high level of fare increases each year is to ensure that we remain the European railway network with the highest, or nearly the highest, percentage contribution towards the running costs of our network coming from fares paid by passengers and the lowest, or nearly the lowest, percentage from the Government. That is why our fares are so high. Will the Government confirm that in any new modernised rail fare structure that will unfortunately continue to be the position?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, as I said, we are aiming to move from RPI to CPI. We are continuing with record levels of funding, with around £48 billion expected to be spent on the network from 2019 to 24, but rail fares will continue to play a role in delivering improvements. We are delivering the biggest rail modernisation for more than a century, and it is meaning faster journeys, longer trains, longer platforms and more seats.

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

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sugg]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Rosser]

If the Government are having discussions with passenger representatives, why did it not say so in the consultation outcome paragraph?

[Baroness Sugg]

I apologise that it did not. I will be looking at what we say in the consultation paragraphs in future to ensure that there is proper information to give assurance to noble Lords. I personally, my officials and indeed the Secretary of State regularly meet with industry and passenger interest groups to ensure that we are getting this right as we leave the European Union.

As I say, I hope I have answered the majority of questions. I apologise if I have missed any but there were quite a few, so I will follow up in writing. As I have said, we remain confident that we will reach an agreement with the EU, but of course it is important that we prepare our legislative framework in case we leave the EU with no deal. That is what this SI is doing. The regulations do not make any changes to the substance of the insurance requirements that air carriers and aircraft operators are expected to meet, but they are essential to ensuring that the retained EU legislation which sets out these requirements continues to work effectively in the UK immediately after exit day. That is what these SIs are designed to do. We need to ensure that we have the right regulatory and legislative framework to provide passengers and industry with choice, connectivity and value for money irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations. I beg to move.

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

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. As the noble Baroness said, I am afraid they are the first of many EU exit transport regulations. The purpose of these regulations is indeed to make minor and technical amendments to the three pieces of legislation that we are discussing, by amending the language used to take account of EU exit, but otherwise to maintain the status quo.

As I said in my opening remarks, the regulations themselves do not set, raise or lower fees. The fees orders are supplementary to existing powers that the Secretary of State has in other legislation, and that other legislation sets the fees. The regulations do not in any way extend the powers of the Secretary of State or relate to a change in the fees.

I turn to the questions that were asked. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. We have consulted extensively with the industry on that and we will be discussing the regulations under that Act soon. There is a government response to the consultation, which I will forward to the noble Lord, explaining where we are on fees. We will be discussing that soon.

As I said, the regulations do not set or change the fees themselves but merely set out what can be taken into account, so charges absolutely will not go up. There has been a role for the EU Commission in setting the charges in the past but there will not be after exit.

For the non-UK driver—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—EU driving licences will continue to be recognised in the UK post Brexit, as set out in some of our recent technical notices, so the charges for getting a GB driving licence will not change.

On the question of devolved Administrations, which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned, we are working closely with them throughout our entire SI programme—obviously more so on some which are directly relevant than on others, but on every one we are working closely with them. Some of the fees orders’ functions are GB-wide—for example, driving licences, as Northern Ireland has its own regime and its own legislation to set its own fees—while others relate to the whole of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

That is very much subject to negotiations. We hope to agree a mutually beneficial deal with liberalised access to continue as it is for haulage firms. Bilateral permits exist. In the event of no deal, we will work bilaterally with the countries involved to agree permit systems. We are very keen to pursue continuing the access that we have at the moment, which would be reciprocal. That is what we are working towards.

The noble Baroness is quite right that many of our goods are moved by small businesses and we are reliant on them for that. I agree that an increase in charges would adversely affect them but, as I said, the regulations do not change the fee or regulate businesses. The fee orders determine what the Secretary of State can consider rather than regulate small businesses. That is why it is noted as such.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about consultation. We are working closely with all our transport stakeholders on the Brexit regulations. We have spoken to them about all the different SIs. This SI will not affect stakeholders. All it will do is remove the obligation on the Secretary of State to take note of the European Union.

On the impact of a deal, which we are all working hard to achieve, the SI will come into force on exit day, which is defined in the withdrawal Act as 29 March 2019. Ultimately, the coming into force of the SI will depend on the outcome of the EU negotiations and any new legislation arising from that outcome. If the UK reaches a withdrawal agreement with the EU, that agreement is expected to provide for an implementation period. We have announced that in that event, we will introduce to Parliament a European Union withdrawal agreement Bill as a primary means of implementing the agreement. Exit day would remain 11 pm on 29 March 2019 but the coming into force of the SI may be reviewed and delayed until the end of the implementation period. The SI may not be needed, but it is part of our readiness work, as are the SIs to come, which we strongly believe we should be doing as a responsible Government. Noble Lords are aware of the number of upcoming SIs and the limited parliamentary time, so we will spread them out between now and exit day to get through them. Obviously, if a deal is reached and an implementation period is agreed, that will affect that.

[Lord Rosser]

Can the Minister say something about what is said in the regulations under “Citation and commencement”? She said that the regulations will come into force on exit day. We have been told repeatedly by the Government that we will exit the European Union on 29 March next year, but I sense from what she just said—I am sure that she will correct me if I am wrong—that the reference to exit day may not apply to 29 March 2019 if a deal is done, so the Government accept that we may not withdraw from the European Union on that day. Is that the Government’s position?

[Baroness Sugg]

As I said, exit day will remain 11 pm on 29 March 2019. When this SI comes into force is currently defined in the withdrawal Act but should a deal be reached where we get a withdrawal agreement, the implementation day of the instrument could change through the subsequent Bill that the Government will bring forward to implement the withdrawal agreement in UK law.

[Lord Rosser]

I am not sure whether the Minister has responded to my point, but I asked whether there was any possibility that during the transition period, agreements could be reached or arrangements made that could have an impact on the terms and relevance of the SI. Is it the Government’s position that even if there is a transition period, nothing will happen then that could have an impact on the relevance of anything in this statutory instrument?

[Baroness Sugg]

The expectation is that with the withdrawal agreement we will have an implementation period. During that period we would be covered by current EU laws and therefore this secondary legislation would not come into effect. Obviously I cannot give a guarantee of that because we do not yet know the outcome regarding the withdrawal agreement and it has yet to pass through Parliament, but the expectation is that during the implementation period we would continue as we are and the SI would not come into force until the date agreed through the withdrawal agreement Bill that will be coming through the House.

[Lord Rosser]

Is the Government’s position that in any discussions during the transition period nothing would be agreed that might have an impact upon the relevance of this SI and necessitate it being altered, other than its effective date?

[Baroness Sugg]

I am afraid I am not able to give a definitive answer to the noble Lord’s question. As I said, we have yet to agree a transition or implementation period with the EU. As we do not know those terms, I am not able to answer the question. However, our expectation is that throughout that period we will continue as we are, so this SI would not come into effect until a date set out in the EU withdrawal agreement Bill.

I take the noble Lord’s point that the negotiations and discussions on that agreement are ongoing, and the outcome of those may of course affect what we do in future. However, due to the number of regulations that will have to be discussed in order to ensure that our statute books are fit for 29 March should we not reach an agreement, we think it is the responsible thing to do to keep going with this programme and start these discussions between now and exit day.

I reiterate that the detail around the delivery of the specified functions and the prescription of the fees that can be charged for delivery are set out in other legislation. Making this proposed instrument would merely enable the continuation of the current fee-setting process by removing references to the EU after we leave, so things would absolutely continue as they are.

Railways: Train Timetables

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the new timetable was planned to deliver hundreds more services up and down the country to benefit passengers, but I think that we can all agree that it has not been successfully delivered. As I say, we are working closely with the train operating companies to ensure that the interim timetables provide the reliable services that passengers expect and deserve. We are conducting a review into whether GTR has met its contractual obligations, which will report in the coming weeks. Once completed, we will follow the advice.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

An industry readiness board was set up to review and direct,

“industry programmes for Thameslink 2018 operational readiness to minimise all risks associated with entry into service and ongoing sustained operations”.

The Department for Transport sat on that readiness board, with its “operational readiness” remit. How can the Secretary of State for Transport maintain that he has no responsibility or accountability for the operational effectiveness and performance of the railway network—including the present shambles—when his own department was represented on the Thameslink 2018 industry readiness board with its clear operational readiness remit?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the rail industry has collectively failed to deliver for its customers. It is right that it apologise, and the Department for Transport has apologised too. As I have said, we are prioritising the reliability of the service, but I take the noble Lord’s point. That is why we have set up an independent inquiry —to understand what went wrong. We are eagerly awaiting its recommendations because we must learn these lessons, and we will.

Stonehenge Tunnel

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, 5,000 responses were received to the consultation earlier this year on the proposals to improve the A303 past Stonehenge on the 7.5 miles between Amesbury and Berwick Down. Those 5,000 responses have prompted a further consultation on what the recent advertisements in the press describe as “certain aspects” over four weeks from 17 July. What are the certain aspects on which Highways England will shortly be seeking further views which could not reasonably have been foreseen and included as part of the earlier consultation? When will the A303 proposals be submitted for development consent? The Highways England website says mid-2018, but there is a further consultation to come.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, this is a complicated site and we need to do all we can to preserve it. Since the consultation ended, the scheme has undergone further consideration and further development, which led to the identification of three changes, specifically: removing the previously proposed links between byways 11 and 12; widening the green bridge proposed near the existing Longbarrow roundabout to improve the physical and visual connection; and moving the proposed modification of Rollestone crossroads to provide a more compact junction layout. That consultation will take place until 14 August, and then the feedback will be considered and the DCO will be submitted.

Govia Thameslink

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

An industry readiness board was set up to review and direct “industry programmes for Thameslink 2018 operational readiness to minimise all risks associated with entry into service and ongoing sustained operations”. The Department for Transport sat on that board. Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State for Transport claims that he has no responsibility for the current new timetable shambles, why was the Department for Transport on that readiness board with its operational readiness remit?

Secondly, the Secretary of State has set up an inquiry into the causes of the current new timetable problems under the chair of the Office of Rail and Road. Some think that the ORR, which also sat on the readiness board, is one of the causes of the current problems through its cost-reduction demands on Network Rail and their impact on train planning costs and manpower. Who, then, will be considering the role of the ORR in respect of the current Thameslink timetable problems, since clearly that person cannot credibly be the chair of the ORR?

[Baroness Sugg]

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

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

Local Congestion: Investment

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the Centre for Cities, a think tank focused on the economic benefits and development of cities, has recently questioned the effectiveness of investment in roads as a catalyst for local economic development in the light of the evaluations that have been undertaken. It suggests that the evidence is far from conclusive and comments that other ways of investing money to reduce congestion could be more effective. Can the Minister say what evaluations of the impact of investment in local roads the Government are relying on to show that such investment does represent value for money in terms of reducing congestion and increasing productivity in local areas, as compared with other ways of investing the money to achieve the same objective? Will the Government make those evaluations, on which presumably they rely, publicly available, if they have not already done so?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I mentioned in my Answer to the original Question that the average is a return of £4.50 for every £1 invested. Our last evaluation, back in 2014, looked at how the investment we are making benefits the economy. We are carrying out a new study that will be available later this year to ensure that we are spending money wisely.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

We are working with local authority ports and borders teams to advise them on prioritising the checking of imports. We have allocated a grant of £100,000, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned, to help them have an immediate and targeted impact. We are also working with online retailers and importers.

[Lord Rosser]

Although I do not want to state the obvious, could I ask the Minister to confirm that the £100,000 is the sum in total across all local authorities? It is not £100,000 for each local authority involved in this activity.

[Baroness Sugg]

Yes, I can confirm that it is a total of £100,000. Perhaps I will get some more detail on exactly what work the department is doing with local authorities to help them deal with this issue.

On the licensing regime, the evidence we gathered in our call for evidence did not indicate that a ban or a licensing regime would have a positive impact on public safety. We believe that introducing legislation to license the supply and purchase of high-powered lasers would not tackle illegal imports that are purchased online or indeed the many people purchasing them while on holiday. We have looked at international examples. Australia and New Zealand have taken legislative action to impose a ban or a strict licensing system, but that did not actually have a positive effect on reducing the number of these laser incidents.

We do not think that we should classify laser pointers as offensive weapons. I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that only a few people use lasers in a legitimate way, but we think that it would penalise them. However, if a pointer is adapted for use to cause injury or if it is intended to be used to do so, it would then be classified as an offensive weapon.

My noble friend Lord Balfe raised the issue of children who commit this offence and the responsibility of their parents. Obviously, children under 10 years of age cannot be charged with committing an offence, but other steps can be taken such as a local child curfew or a child safety order. Of course, children aged between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court. However, I understand the point that my noble friend has made and I will discuss it with my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.

Air traffic control towers were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Balfe, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The Bill does not currently cover air traffic control towers, but it is an interesting point. I am aware of a number of incidents where lasers have been shone at fixed installations. Such installations are often located in controlled areas so there is less scope to shine a laser, but we can certainly consider whether air traffic control towers should be included in the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Kirkhope asked about regional air traffic control and how best to deal with these reports, in particular as regards general aviation. The CAA has published a safety notice on laser attacks which provides guidance for air traffic controllers, principally to inform the police immediately and pass on all relevant information. However, obviously I understand that in general aviation the practice is perhaps not as well known as it should be. We will discuss the matter with the CAA.

A number of noble Lords raised the regulation of certain strengths of lasers. It might be helpful to say a few words on the current situation on the classification of lasers in the market. Lasers sold in the UK are classified in accordance with the current British standard on laser safety, which sets out eight classes of laser products. The classification scheme for lasers indicates the potential risks of adverse health effects. The higher the class number, the greater the radiation hazards posed by the laser. Under the General Product Safety Regulations, only laser pointers considered safe for general use should be made available to the public through general sale. The higher classes 3 and 4 are not suitable for sale to consumers. Laser pointers above 1 milliwatt are generally accepted to have limited specialist uses and can be removed from the market. But obviously, as I said, consumers purchase products directly via the internet and while overseas on holiday, which is of course more difficult to control.

My noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned stop and search and whether the police need these powers. It is worth noting that the police already have the power to stop and search for laser pointers where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the pointer is intended to cause injury. That is because the laser would then be deemed an offensive weapon. The Government are clear that the power of stop and search, when used correctly, is vital in the fight against crime, but the Home Office is currently conducting a review to achieve greater transparency on this. While this work takes place, it would not be appropriate to consult on extending the power of stop and search to cover lasers, but my department, together with the Home Office, will consider consulting on proposals to apply the power of stop and search to laser pointers as soon as that review is concluded, which I expect to be later this year.

On sentencing, five years is the maximum jail term, as I said, and would be imposed in only the most serious cases, but we believe it is important to have an effective deterrent for these sorts of offences. As I explained, it will be a triable either way offence. It will be up to the courts to decide which court should hear each case, dependent on the seriousness. For a summary offence tried in the magistrates’ court, the maximum imprisonment will be restricted to six months in England and Wales or 12 months when Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act is commenced.

On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on where the case would be tried if the offence is done across a border—which, I must admit, is something I had not considered—I imagine it will be where the person holding the laser has his feet placed, as that is where the offence would be committed. I will certainly take that back to clarify. He also asked how many people had been found guilty of committing this offence. In 2016 it was 10 and in 2015 it was 16. I will send the noble Lord the full figures I have available.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned drones. As I said at the end of November, it is our intention to bring forward drone legislation in the spring of this year. That is still our intention. I understand the importance of the issue and the desire to act quickly on this, but we have decided to separate the treatment of drones from that of lasers as they present different challenges. I look forward to bringing forward drones legislation as quickly as possible.

As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mentioned, I am lucky enough to have both the president and the vice-president—and, indeed, lowly members—of BALPA in your Lordships’ House, so I want to take this opportunity to thank BALPA for its engagement with my department on this and many other issues that face the aviation sector. I hope that I have addressed all the issues raised. If not, as I said, I will follow them up in writing.

We believe that the existing laws are not strong enough, with the police unable properly to investigate and prosecute such incidents. The police lack powers to search the homes of suspects. Even when a conviction is secured, the maximum penalty for dazzling or distraction is only £2,500, and there is no specific law against shining a laser at a ship or at motorists at the wheel. This new offence will act as a deterrent to these dangerous incidents happening in the first place, but if they do occur, the proposals will help the police bring the offenders to justice.

The safety and security of the travelling public must always be a top priority for the Government. With more than 1,000 attacks on aircraft reported each year, as well as those on other modes of transport, we have a duty to act. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Sub-national Transport Body (Transport for the North) Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My apologies for missing that. We are aware of the potential issue of the different rates of APD in Scotland and the north of England and indeed in the rest of the UK. In the Budget last week, that change was not made, but we keep a close eye on it.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister is confirming that Transport for the North is about “articulating the case”, to use her words, and that decisions on how much will be spent and where will continue to rest in Whitehall with the Secretary of State. Transport for the North is purely about articulating the case, and I use the Minister’s own words.

[Baroness Sugg]

As I hope I made clear, Transport for the North will articulate the strategic decisions, setting out how it wants to develop transport for the north, but the ultimate decisions on funding will remain with the Secretary of State.

Railways: Fares

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I have indeed been looking at the comparison between the UK and Europe. I understand that it very much depends on which rail fare you are looking at; many fares are similar or even cheaper in the UK. Britain has seen the biggest shift to rail from other transport of any railway in Europe since 2009. We have comparable punctuality and higher than average customer satisfaction, and we are investing more in rail than any country in Europe. We are currently delivering the biggest upgrades to our network since the Victorian era.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Could the Minister confirm that the Government have locked themselves and rail passengers into the yearly increase in regulated fares being related to the normally higher retail prices index figure for at least the number of years that each existing franchise is due to continue, since that is part of the franchise agreements with train operating companies? What amount of compensation in total would have to have been paid to train operating companies for lower than expected fare revenue if the Government had decided to agree to this coming January’s increase in regulated fares being related to the increase in the widely used—not least by government—consumer prices index, rather than the higher retail prices index?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out that our current franchise agreements are negotiated on the RPI increase. I say again that we recognise the effect that has on people’s incomes and keep it under review. We welcome the fact that we were able to reduce this from RPI plus 1 in 2014. I am afraid I do not have the figures to hand, and I am not sure they would be available, on the compensation that would need to be given if we used CPI rather than RPI.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

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

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I assume that when she comes to respond the Minister will talk about the wording of the amendment and, if she is not going to accept it on behalf of the Government, will indicate why it is not acceptable. Therefore, my brief comments and questions are based on the assumption that she will talk about the wording of the amendment and what it would mean if it were included in the Bill, because obviously I share the concerns that have been expressed. I hope that if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment on behalf of the Government, she will at least indicate a willingness to reflect further on this matter prior to its being considered in the House of Commons.

In her response, perhaps the Minister could say what the Government envisage they might want to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) as it stands that they consider they would not be able to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) if it were amended in line with this amendment. Or, to put it the other way round, what do the Government consider they would not be able to do that they might want to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) amended in line with this amendment that they would be able to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) as it stands?

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

My Lords, we debated this issue extensively in Committee and on Report, and I regret that I have been unable to convince noble Lords of the necessity of this provision as drafted.

The wording of the clause—which is why we are keen to include it rather than the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—is consistent with that contained in Section 60(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, the latter being a power to do anything,

“generally for regulating air navigation”.

A similar power arises under Section 11(1) of the Outer Space Act 1986 to enable the making of regulations generally for carrying that Act into effect. That is why we put forward the wording that we did in the Bill.

As noble Lords are well aware, there are a number of other regulation-making powers in the Bill, notably around security and safety. However, we need to ensure that we can regulate those wider matters relating to spaceflight and associated activities carried out in the UK that are not covered by the other powers. For example, this may include implementation of our international obligations relating to spaceflight arising from bilateral or multilateral treaties. We know from our experience in other sectors, such as aviation, that despite our best efforts there needs to be the flexibility to deal with any unexpected circumstances. The Government therefore remain convinced that this provision, as currently drafted, is needed to ensure that all aspects of the Bill can be fully implemented effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I thank all those involved for their interest in, engagement with and scrutiny of the Bill over the past few months. The UK space industry is a British success story—a story of invention, innovation and global ambition. The Bill will take us further, enabling new satellite launch services and low-gravity spaceflight from UK spaceports, and supporting our industrial strategy to deliver a stronger economy that works for everyone.

I thank my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Callanan, who took the Bill through its early stages, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord McNally, and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who provided rigorous scrutiny throughout this process. I am grateful for the contributions of my noble friend Lord Moynihan; I, for one, will miss the strong advocacy for a certain location in Scotland. Finally, I thank policy officials and lawyers from the UK Space Agency, the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for their work on the Bill.

It has been a privilege to debate the Bill with noble Lords, whose knowledge and expertise I have found incredibly helpful. We have taken on many of the recommendations of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee, and I thank them for their work. The constructive engagement, conversations and debates we have had together have led to significant improvements to the Bill. This is an example of this House at its best, where proper scrutiny and challenge can—put simply—lead to a better Bill. Today, therefore, we stand one step closer to a new commercial space age, and I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the Minister and the Bill team for their willingness to consider the points we have raised about the Bill during its passage through this House. A number of meetings have been held, which we appreciated, and we welcome the changes the Government have been prepared to see made to the Bill as a result.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe for—I was going to say “his advice and support” but the reality is that it has been infinitely more than that. I also thank Grace Wright in our office for all the hard and vitally important work that she has done for us on the Bill.

Drones

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question directly. We are exploring the possibility of restricting drone use near airports and are looking at a combination of primary and secondary legislation. I will attempt to clarify that and write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, welcomed legislation coming at an early stage, but I thought the Minister said that legislation would come some time next year, which does not seem to me to be “at an early stage”. What is the Government’s current assessment of the possibility of a drone being involved in a major incident resulting in loss of life or serious injury? Is such a major incident becoming more or less likely as each day passes?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am aware that the expectation of an incident is high. Of course, there has not been a significant incident yet—

Brexit: Tourism

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Monday 20th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

I can confirm that yes, it was indeed possible to fly across the Channel, and we look forward to continuing to do so.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

No guarantees were given to my noble friend Lord Adonis in response to his question, and I am sure that note has been taken of that fact. In the light of the Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and of the potential adverse impact on tourism, will the Government at least do what the aviation industry wants and give a commitment now to deal with aviation separately and in advance of the main negotiations with the EU on Brexit since there is no automatic WTO fallback for the governance of international aviation rights if we do not reach agreement on new air service agreements following our withdrawal from the EU? Will the Minister, having failed to give the guarantees sought by my noble friend Lord Adonis, at least give a commitment on behalf of the Government to deal with aviation separately and in advance of the main negotiations?

[Baroness Sugg]

I am afraid I am not able to give that commitment to the noble Lord today. How sectors are discussed will of course be a matter for the negotiations, but of course we recognise that traditionally aviation agreements have been negotiated separately. For our part, we are ready to move on with the negotiations.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I recognise noble Lords’ concerns that there are currently no specific provisions in the Bill regarding the environmental impacts of spaceports and spaceflight activities on local communities, particularly in relation to noise and emissions. However, Clause 2 requires the regulator to take into account the environmental objectives set by the Government. I know that some noble Lords have raised concerns that future objectives cannot be predicted—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised that again today—but the inclusion of that requirement was intended to promote environmental protection, as the regulator will have to take account of existing guidance, such as Defra’s air quality plan.

As noble Lords will be aware, there already exists a comprehensive body of environmental and planning legislation that spaceports and spaceflight operators will need to comply with independently of the requirements under the Bill. For example, an environmental impact assessment may be required for airport-related development under Schedule 2 to the environmental impact assessment regulations where it is,

“likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location”.

In such cases, the local planning authority will be obliged to scrutinise the environmental impact, taking into account the concerns of local communities such as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has just raised. An environmental assessment will be required as part of any airspace changes.

However, there might be circumstances where a particular activity could be carried out without the need for an environmental impact assessment under planning and airspace rules. The purpose of Amendment 9 is to put on the face of the Bill a licence condition that the regulator could impose—for example, where an environmental impact or other assessment has not already been undertaken.

I appreciate that this amendment does not impose a mandatory requirement for the spaceport or spaceflight operator to make an environmental assessment; nor does it require the regulator to take into account environmental and local impacts, as Amendment 2 seeks to do. However, it makes very clear the Government’s intention that some form of assessment of noise and emissions should take place, and it does this without creating requirements in the Bill that may duplicate existing requirements to carry out environmental assessments under other enactments.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords of the Government’s intention of ensuring that environmental impacts are assessed, either as part of the planning process or as a condition of a licence under the Bill. However, I am aware that your Lordships do not think that this goes far enough, as they have made clear today—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made a very fair point about roads and road access. Therefore, I assure the House that the Government are considering introducing in the other place a further amendment that will require spaceport and spaceflight applicants to submit a noise and emissions assessment, and that regulators take this into account when deciding the licence application. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for her reply but perhaps I may inquire a bit further. Government Amendment 9 provides that a licence under this legislation can include a condition that an assessment must be done of the impact that noise and emissions caused by the activities being licensed will have on local communities. If that amendment is agreed—we are certainly happy with it—it will then be included in the Bill when it goes to the Commons. I am not entirely clear from what the Minister has said what the Government are still considering as an amendment they might bring forward in the Commons. Will there be an amendment referring to the wider environmental duty and the impact on local communities, or is that not what the Minister was saying? I am not clear what the Government are considering bringing forward in the Commons.

[Baroness Sugg]

The amendment we are considering taking forward is requiring spaceports and applicants to carry out the environmental assessment, which will of course take into account the effect on the local community, and requiring regulators to take that into account.

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I did not understand the matter properly first time round, but in the light of that clarification from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, Clause 2 sets out the overarching duties of the regulator in carrying out its functions under the Bill. Subsection (1) establishes the duty of securing public safety as the regulator’s priority, while subsection (2) lists the other factors that the regulator must take into account while carrying out its functions. There is no hierarchy in the matters listed in subsection (2).

Amendments 3 and 8 to subsection (2) and Schedule 1 are in response to the helpful debate on space debris on the first day of Committee. In relation to an amendment tabled to Clause 12, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, highlighted the very real risks and challenges posed by space debris. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, recognised the work of the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee—the IADC—of which the UK is a member, which has issued guidelines in this area. My noble friend Lord Willetts acknowledged the UK’s expertise in this area.

I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the points made by my noble friend Lord Callanan during this debate. The UK Space Agency already considers matters relating to space debris and the guidelines issued by the IADC, and is an active member in carrying out its regulatory function under the Outer Space Act 1986. Through the IADC, the UK Government remain fully committed to implementing and influencing best practice to protect the space environment. Furthermore, the Bill enables regulators to include conditions within licences that relate to the disposal of a satellite at the end of its operational life and compliance with debris mitigation guidelines.

In the light of the Government’s commitment to the IADC and following further reflection on the points raised in Committee, we are tabling this amendment, which would place a requirement in the Bill for a regulator to consider space debris mitigation guidelines when exercising its functions. These guidelines are issued by an international organisation to which the UK is represented. This wording will cover international bodies, including the IADC, and the International Organisation for Standardization’s orbital debris co-ordination working group, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in Committee. I beg to move Amendment 3.

[Lord Rosser]

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke eloquently in Committee on the issue of his party and pavement politics, before referring to his concerns about space debris and the need to bring it back safely—although he did not say whether he was looking for weekly or fortnightly collections. If the noble Lord, Lord McNally, considers that the Government’s amendments address the legitimate concerns he raised, they will of course have our support.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments. They are a first step in the right direction. Although I may have rather light-heartedly introduced the issue at the last stage, we have only to look at what we have done to the sea and to Everest to see how easily important places can be polluted. For that reason, it is important that this is on the agenda.

As was indicated in our last debate, work is being done about this problem by British technology companies. Although it may be the less glamorous end of space travel, clearing up space debris may well be another cutting-edge area that we can exploit as this expands.

The IADC is a representative body. Its membership includes all the big players—Russia, the United States, China, ourselves, the European Space Agency, India, Italy, France, Japan, Ukraine. It is the right body to take these matters forward and the amendment is welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, Clause 14 enables a licensee to transfer their licence to another party, provided the regulator has given written consent. The provision enables a new body or company to take over the licence without starting a licence application completely afresh. In Committee the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, tabled an amendment seeking to clarify that the eligibility provisions in Clause 8(3) would also apply to the person to whom a licence is being transferred under Clause 14.

It is helpful to briefly recap what Clause 8 requires before a licence can be granted. Under subsection (2), the regulator must be satisfied that granting a licence will not impair national security, is consistent with the UK’s international obligations and would not be contrary to our national interest. Subsection (3) then sets certain eligibility criteria for licence holders, with which the regulator must be satisfied before granting a licence. The criteria ensure that a licence holder has the necessary financial and technical resources to do the things authorised by the licence and that both the licence holder and employees and agents acting on the licence holder’s behalf are fit and proper persons to do the things authorised by the licence.

It has always been the Government’s intention that the regulator will need to be satisfied that the tests set out in Clauses 8(2) and 8(3) would apply to the transfer of a licence under Clause 14, as it does to the initial grant of a licence. The amendment makes the Government’s intentions clear in the Bill and puts this beyond any doubt.

I thank noble Lords for their original amendment. I hope they will welcome the fact that we have reflected and that the amendment goes further than previously proposed. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for the Government’s Amendment 10, which, as she said, addresses an issue we raised in Committee and will put in the Bill that the regulator may consent to a licence being transferred only if the transfer and the person to whom it is being transferred meet the same tests as laid out for the granting of the licence in Clause 8. In Committee I asked whether the consent of the Secretary of State would also be required for a licence to be transferred, bearing in mind that under Clause 8(4) the consent of the Secretary of State is required for the granting of a licence. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the then Minister, said he would reflect on that and come back to me. He may have done so, but if he has I am afraid I have forgotten what he said. Is the Minister able to say now or later what the answer is to that question?

[Baroness Sugg]

Both the regulator and the Secretary of State would need to be satisfied that the transfer of a licence was appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are minor and technical amendments which are required to address drafting issues in the Bill.

First, I turn to Amendments 12, 13, 29, 30 and 38. Currently, the definition of “enactment” in Clause 68 provides that it includes an enactment contained in Northern Ireland legislation. The Interpretation Act 1978 provides in Section 5 and Schedule 1 that unless the contrary intention appears, the term “enactment” used in legislation does not include Acts of the Scottish Parliament or legislation made under those Acts. As it is the policy intention that references to “enactment” in the Bill should cover legislation made throughout the United Kingdom, we propose to amend the clause so that the term “enactment”, where used, refers to secondary legislation and Scottish and Welsh legislation, as well as retaining the reference to Northern Ireland. I reassure noble Lords that official conversations have taken place with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and all are content with the amendments the Government are tabling on Report. There are a number of consequential amendments to Clause 51 and Schedule 5 to replace uses of “enactment”. Those references are to particular Acts of the UK Parliament rather than to legislation in general, so it is not appropriate for the definition of “enactment” to apply in those cases.

Amendment 39 ensures that English, Welsh and Northern Ireland partnerships can be prosecuted in Scotland. Currently, Clause 57, which deals with offences by partnerships, only extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is set out in the full heading of Clause 57, and Scotland is explicitly excluded from the extent of the clause in Clause 70(2). The Government initially considered that Clause 57 did not need to extend to Scotland because partnerships are treated differently in Scots law. Existing legislation already makes similar provision for Scotland to that in Clause 57; Clause 70 was drafted accordingly. However, it has since come to light that while there is no need for the Bill to make provision for Scottish partnerships, the current draft presents the risk that there would be no power to prosecute an English, Welsh or Northern Ireland partnership in Scotland. Since it is the policy intention that these prosecutions should be within the power of the Scottish courts, we propose to delete Clause 70(2).

Finally, Amendment 40 includes an additional provision in the Bill to allow this legislation to be extended to Crown dependencies and overseas territories, as modified, by way of an Order in Council. The Bill has the potential to bring new business opportunities in an expanding space market, bringing in new revenue, jobs, training opportunities and other benefits to local areas. It is an important principle that the potential benefits of the Bill are accessible across not just across the United Kingdom but in our Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Amendment 40 will allow the Government of a Crown dependency or overseas territory to utilise the regulatory framework the Bill creates for spaceflight activities and to develop a spaceport if they would like to do so. I beg to move Amendment 12.

[Lord Rosser]

May I ask a bit more about government Amendment 40 in relation to Crown dependencies and overseas territories? As I understand it, this is a fairly standard clause in Acts of Parliament, but perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is so or it is something of a rarity.

My understanding of the Minister’s concluding comments is that a Crown dependency or overseas territory, if it wished, could seek to have a spaceport on its territory. However, would government Amendment 40 be activated, in the sense of seeking the Order in Council, by the British Government or could it be activated only if so requested by a UK Crown dependency or overseas territory itself, or could it indeed be activated at the request of a company or even another country? What would be the criteria for determining whether or not the provisions of the Act should be extended as provided for in government Amendment 40?

Would the provisions of the Act be so extended under the terms of government Amendment 40 if it was felt that it worsened the prospects of the development and expansion of the UK space industry in this country—even in Prestwick? If the provisions were so extended, could companies from any country in the world establish spaceflight facilities in a UK Crown dependency or overseas territory, or would it be restricted to British companies, at least as the lead company? Finally, could we have an assurance that extending the provisions of the Act to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any British overseas territory would not give any companies, whether private or state-owned, any tax advantages, particularly in the form of lower tax, compared to the tax regime that would apply to a space industry company operating under the Act’s provisions in this country?

[Lord Fox]

The noble Lord has stolen many of my lines. There seem to be a lot of loose ends here. I reiterate his question about how much of the Bill applies to a Crown dependency in the event that it builds a spaceport. Are we looking just at the right to do it, or are all the other provisions of the Bill in place in a Crown dependency situation? The point that the noble Lord made very well is: are we in danger of allowing people to set up low-cost competitors in an industry that we are hoping to run from the United Kingdom mainland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

That money is available to people who are currently putting together a case to create a spaceport. As I said, there is currently no interest from overseas territories or Crown dependencies, so that money would not be used by them.

On the tax regime, I am afraid that I do not have the full answer. I will have to get back to the noble Lord.

[Lord Rosser]

I appreciate that this has come up suddenly but I made one or two other points that I do not think the Minister has responded to. For example, would the provision be extended to companies from any country in the world, or would it be restricted to British companies? Could it be agreed, only to find that it is to the detriment of companies wanting to set up spaceflight facilities or spaceports in this country?

[Baroness Sugg]

Any international company could request spaceflight activity within any of the ports but, as I say, it will ultimately be a commercial decision as to whether these activities take place. We would not play an active role in that.

[Lord Rosser]

Is that really consistent with a Bill that is designed to promote the industry in this country?

[Baroness Sugg]

The Bill is designed to promote the industry in this country and that is what we are focusing on. The addition of this provision just allows that in the future, should there be any interest, the Crown dependencies and overseas territories could take on the legislation framework and develop the activity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

I thank noble Lords for raising the question of emergency powers again. Since their interventions in Committee, we have been reflecting on this provision. I will do my best not to make all the same arguments that we made in Committee.

This amendment seeks to require that an enforcement authorisation issued by the Secretary of State is evaluated by a justice of the peace within 48 hours after the 48 hours that the authorisation has been in force. The enforcement authorisation issued under Clause 32 may be issued only under certain circumstances, which do not include a commercial emergency. They are: when there is an urgent case to act to protect national security; to ensure compliance with international obligations; or to protect people’s health and safety. The authorisation must be issued in writing to a named person and specify the action authorised to be taken. The authorisation itself will remain in force for 48 hours only. This reflects the urgent nature of the action considered necessary and requires it to be taken within a short period.

We referred to similar powers of other regulators in Committee, and we have tried to look across other legislation to ensure that we have the right balance here. Some of these powers are not subject to any review once they have been exercised. There is a precedent for this approach in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which allows officers to enter premises without a warrant where it is suspected that there has been a breach of legislation, where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the entry, and where it is not practicable to give notice or where the entry is for the purpose of surveillance. The reasons for which an authorisation under Clause 32 may be issued are strictly related to emergency situations, and therefore are more restricted than the circumstances in the Consumer Rights Act. I should also clarify that improper use of the power by an appointed person under Clause 32 would be subject to judicial review, so it can be challenged if necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, brought to noble Lords’ attention the fact that warrants issued under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 are subject to approval by a judicial commissioner within three working days of the warrant being issued. This is appropriate because these warrants remain in place for five days and relate to the sensitive practices of targeted interception, examination of the contents of communications and international assistance in such matters. This is not comparable to either the power under Clause 32 or the approach proposed by this amendment. Our advice from cross-Whitehall consultations is that there is no known precedent of a justice of the peace conducting an evaluation of an emergency power once it has been exercised.

We are also not clear what purpose evaluation by a justice of the peace would serve, as the order would be spent and the specified action taken by the time of the evaluation. It is also not clear what, if any, follow-up action would be available. I am afraid I cannot address the noble Lord’s concerns directly but we are continuing to reflect and will keep working with colleagues across Whitehall to ensure that we get a proportionate set of enforcement powers in the Bill, so that we can undertake spaceflight activities safely but also with regard to our national security and international obligations. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for her reply and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his contribution to the debate. I find it difficult when a Government say that they cannot understand what purpose a post hoc review of their action, or of a decision by the Secretary of State to issue the enforcement authorisation and whether it has been abused, would have. Clearly, if it had been abused, that would become known. Although I agree you cannot rectify the abuse that has already occurred, the thought that it might be drawn to public attention had it taken place would act as a deterrent, certainly in the future if it happened again. So I am puzzled that the Government do not apparently understand what the purpose would be of the review suggested in the amendment and, indeed, suggested by the committee concerned.

When the Minister says that the Government are still reflecting on this, once again I am afraid I am not entirely clear what exactly they are still reflecting on, bearing in mind that the Minister has not held out—at least, that is how it appears to me—any prospect at any later stage during the Bill’s proceedings of the Government perhaps coming forward with a proposal of their own if they do not like the look of the proposal in this amendment. When the Minister indicates that the Government are still reflecting on this, are they reflecting in the sense that they may come forward at some later stage in the Bill’s progress through Parliament with a proposal of their own that deals with, or at least addresses, the issues raised in the amendment?

[Baroness Sugg]

As I say, we are still looking at some type of post hoc review. We are developing the options for that and trying to understand what the implications would be. That work is ongoing.

[Lord Rosser]

In the light of what the Minister has said about looking at a post hoc review, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is in his place. I would like to say that he was sorely missed this afternoon, but unfortunately I cannot—we did not miss him at all. I can see that his popping in occasionally in the afternoon to this House of concord and agreement must be a pleasure, away from the hell of the Brexit department. It is good to see him. I do not know whether it was my eloquence or the fact that a former Lord Chief Justice—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—applied his powerful arguments, but we welcome the Government’s concession.

I will not go into a great deal of detail on Amendment 33A. I will read out the section we want to delete:

“Regulations may make provision generally for carrying this Act into effect and for achieving the purpose set out in section 1(1)”.


Subsection 1 is equally catch-all. It states:

“This Act has effect for the purpose of regulating—(a) space activities, (b) sub-orbital activities, and (c) associated activities, carried out in the United Kingdom”.


That is far too wide-reaching.

I make one last plea to the Minister: perhaps we could have further talks involving the opposition—the Official Opposition as well, who put their names to this—to see whether we can get some different wording. We have done a lot of good work on this, but the wording is far too wide. I give her this Gypsy’s warning: if we send the Bill down to the other place with this subsection, it will cause just the same trouble. Parliament has to be very jealous of its privileges during the passage of Bills such as this. This is a bridge too far for anyone who cares about the need to keep powers within these two Houses. I am not going to press the amendment—it would be jarring to the spirit of the whole debate to have a Division at this stage—but if the Minister would agree to meet us and have one more go before Third Reading, that would be helpful.

[Lord Rosser]

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that widespread concern was expressed in Committee about Henry VIII powers in the Bill and the power they would give the Government to bypass Parliament when amending or repealing primary legislation. I too am grateful that the Government have changed their position. I suspect they were concerned that they would lose a vote on this in this House, and were probably far from sure they could put the Henry VIII clause back in the Bill when it got to the Commons. They would also have had the consideration that, at their behest, the Bill started in the Lords rather than the Commons, which is not the normal procedure for Bills containing potentially controversial clauses, as this one did until the government amendment was tabled. Henry VIII may be turning in his grave at these government amendments, but we welcome them.

On Amendment 33A, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I hoped the Government would be able to give some rather more convincing reasons than they gave in Committee for this catch-all regulation-making power being in the Bill. I am afraid the obvious conclusion is that once again, there is no movement because the Government have brought forward this skeletal Bill for their own party management reasons, one year before discussions on the regulations and nearly two years before those key regulations are placed before Parliament. As a result, frankly, the Government do not know what regulations will be needed. Even though this is a difficulty of their own making, they clearly think it quite acceptable to expect Parliament to agree to the wide-ranging regulation-making power Amendment 33A seeks to delete.

I share the view that it would help if this issue could be further discussed before the Bill leaves this House, which means before Third Reading. I also share the view that the subsection that Amendment 33A would delete will, if it remains in the Bill, be the subject of much discussion when it gets to the Commons. If the Government will not agree to delete it, it would be a lot better if it could be amended in some way. I hope they will think again on this issue.

[Baroness Sugg]

I will attempt again to explain our opposition to the amendment. It would result in primary legislation being needed for such cases, including, for example, to make provisions for any developments in technology. This could lead to delayed launches from the UK and harm a burgeoning industry, so we are keen to maintain flexibility.

It is worth noting that the power’s scope is limited. Only regulations that relate to the regulation of spaceflight activities and associated activities can be made, as set out in Clause 1(1). I provided assurances in Committee on the limited scope of these associated activities. If regulations were to go wide of those and cover other areas, the Secretary of State would have exceeded his or her delegated authority and the decision would be subject to judicial review.

The Government have reflected on the concerns expressed about the powers contained in the Bill. We have gone a significant way towards addressing them by removing the Henry VIII power. The removal of Clause 67(1) would adversely impact on the Government’s ability to ensure that legislation relating to spaceflight was kept up to date. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that this Bill was brought forward to supply certainty to the industry, but I understand that concerns remain about the definition of “associated activities” and would be happy to meet noble Lords ahead of Third Reading. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

Noble Lords will recall the wide-ranging debate on parliamentary oversight of secondary legislation that took place in Committee. The Government have reflected on the concerns expressed by noble Lords. As a result, this amendment will impose a statutory duty to carry out a public consultation before any regulations are made under the affirmative resolution procedure.

I hope that the amendment alleviates noble Lords’ concerns and reassures them of the Government’s intention to undertake full and wide-ranging consultation. This will also include a report by the Secretary of State on the consultation. As my noble friend Lord Callanan said in Committee, the Government’s intention is to carry out a public consultation that will invite a response from all interested parties, including noble Lords and trade unions.

Any subsequent regulations that materially changed the substance of the original instruments would also be subject to consultation. All noble Lords who have spoken on the subject will be notified of any public consultation. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

In Committee, we expressed our concerns about the extensive use of secondary legislation to bring in provisions under this Bill due to the Government’s insistence on taking a skeletal Bill through Parliament literally years before the all-important regulations appear.

We also expressed our concern, as did the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, about the Government’s intention, in respect of many regulations, that the affirmative procedure be used only for the first regulations and not for subsequent regulations under the same relevant section of the Bill, which would instead be covered by the negative procedure.

The Government said in Committee that the development of the first sets of regulations would be subject to a stakeholder engagement process over the coming months and that they would then issue a full and wide-ranging consultation on each initial draft statutory instrument prior to their being laid. They also said that if there were any material change to the original instruments, there would be further consultation.

Government Amendment 35 seeks to put some of those undertakings in the Bill. While it does not address the concern about the negative procedure being used for subsequent regulations after the affirmative procedure for the first regulations, it provides a statutory requirement for a public consultation before regulations are made to which Clause 67(6) applies and for a report to be made by the Secretary of State about the consultation when a draft of such regulations is laid before Parliament. To that extent, and it is not a minimal extent, the government amendment represents progress and we welcome it.

Road Safety: Hand-held Devices

Debate between Baroness Sugg and Lord Rosser

Monday 13th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

I am afraid I do not have the figures that the noble Baroness refers to, but I will look into the issue and write to her with that information.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Home Secretary recently told police and crime commissioners to stop pointing out the pressing need for more money for our underresourced police and instead concentrate on those who are breaking the law. That outburst was clearly an admission by the Government that they will let down the police yet again in the forthcoming Budget by not providing the resources that PCCs and the police need to do their job. What representations, if any, have Transport Ministers made to the Treasury that on increasing numbers of occasions road traffic offences—including vehicle theft and using hand-held mobile phones while driving—cannot even be pursued by the police, let alone see perpetrators brought to justice, due to the continuing squeeze on police budgets and continuing reductions in the number of police officers? Can I take it that the Department for Transport, despite the recent publicly expressed concerns of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, has remained utterly silent on the issue of inadequate police resources?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, we are very sensitive to the pressures which police face. We recognised the importance of wider police spending in the 2015 spending review, which protected overall police spending in real terms. It is of course up to police and crime commissioners and chief constables of each police force to decide how they deploy resources. As my noble friend Lady Pidding highlighted, as well as working closely with the police to support enforcement action, police forces across the country are doing valuable work in the campaign to reduce hand-held mobile use and we should commend them.