Rail Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Regulations laid before the House on 9 April be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these instruments will be needed if the UK leaves the EU without a deal and are important in ensuring clarity, certainty and confidence for the rail industry and its customers. I shall provide some background. These three instruments make corrections to several pieces of EU and domestic legislation covering rail safety in Great Britain and rail safety, train driver and operator licensing, access and management and cross-border rail workers’ rights in Northern Ireland.
I turn first to the Rail Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which I will refer to as the GB rail safety instrument. This instrument will make technical corrections to the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 and the Railways (Access to Training Services) Regulations 2006. These sets of regulations, which transposed EU law, set out among other things the requirement to obtain the appropriate safety certificates or authorisations before operating vehicles or managing infrastructure on the railway in Great Britain.
I turn to the two Northern Ireland instruments. Rail is a transferred matter for Northern Ireland, and in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, it has been agreed that the UK Government will be responsible for the necessary Northern Ireland EU Exit legislation at Westminster. In preparing these instruments, officials from the Department for Transport have worked closely with their counterparts in the Department for Infra- structure in Northern Ireland.
The first of the two Northern Ireland instruments, the Railways (Safety Management) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2019, which I will refer to as the Northern Ireland rail safety regulations, is similar to the GB rail safety instrument. It will correct deficiencies in the Railways (Safety Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the regulations that established the legislative regime for managing railway safety in Northern Ireland. The second of the two, the Railways (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2019, also known as the Northern Ireland composite regulations, will correct deficiencies in three pieces of Northern Ireland rail legislation. Among other things, those regulations established a common regulatory regime for licensing and certifying train drivers and operators on the railways. They also implemented rules on aspects of the working conditions of rail workers engaged in interoperable cross-border railway services.
These instruments will correct deficiencies in legislation as a result of the UK leaving the EU. The vast majority of these corrections are minor and technical—for example, removing references to “member state”. It is important to emphasise that the GB rail safety instrument will preserve the status quo, including the requirements and procedures for obtaining safety certificates and authorisations as well as the requirements for rail operators to establish and maintain common safety management systems. The Government’s highest rail priority is to maintain safety and our highly effective safety regime, which is one of the safest in Europe. The regulations secure that regime.
The GB rail safety instrument will remove certain requirements placed on the Office of Rail and Road to share information with the European Union Agency for Railways. However, there will be a power for the ORR to provide certain safety information to EU bodies on a discretionary basis so we can continue to contribute to a safer European railway.
Safety certificates issued in EEA member states will continue to be recognised in Great Britain after the UK’s exit from the EU. However, it is the Government’s intention to lay a second instrument that will limit that recognition to a two-year transitional period after exit or until the relevant certificates expire, whichever is the sooner. This is consistent with previous rail EU exit instruments that have introduced a similar recognition period for train driver and operator licences, and it strikes a balance between allowing for a reasonable transitional period and enabling greater control over the rail safety framework.
The equivalent regulations for rail safety in Northern Ireland will mirror the GB safety regulations, with the exception that Northern Ireland institutions have no plans to introduce a two-year recognition period for EEA licences and certificates, recognising the greater role of cross-border services in Northern Ireland. These documents will be recognised indefinitely in Northern Ireland to enable the continued recognition of licences and certificates issued in the Republic of Ireland.
As well as making minor changes—for example, removing references to “member state”—the NI composite regulations will preserve the status quo for rail operations in Northern Ireland. In short, that means that operators and train drivers in Northern Ireland will have clarity and confidence about the regime.
It should be noted that the EU has adopted a regulation that will provide a temporary extension to the validity of authorisations, certificates and licences required to run cross-border services. This contingency measure is applicable for nine months in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal in place and supplements the extensive efforts already made by the Government and rail operators to secure these important services. While the Government very much welcome the EU regulation, this alone does not provide the necessary certainty for industry which these instruments provide.
These instruments were originally laid under the negative procedure in February of this year. The House of Commons European Statutory Instruments Committee agreed to the use of the negative procedure, but in March the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House recommended that the affirmative procedure should apply as noble Lords might wish to debate the potential impacts on cross-border rail services and those that operate them.
While the Government accepted the committee’s recommendation to lay the instruments under the affirmative procedure, using the standard draft affirmative procedure would almost certainly have meant that the instruments would not have come into effect in time had the UK left the EU on either 29 March or 12 April. Therefore, the Government concluded that, to ensure the instruments were in place for the day expected at that time to be exit day, using the “made affirmative” procedure was appropriate. The Minister responsible for the railways wrote to the chairs of the committees in April to explain this decision and the reasons behind it.
Noble Lords will be aware that, while the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has cleared without comment the GB rail safety and the Northern Ireland composite instruments, it has drawn the special attention of your Lordships’ House to the Northern Ireland rail safety instrument on two minor instances of “defective drafting”.
Specifically, the JCSI identified three missing words in a definition relating to the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure’s monitoring of safety targets, namely the term “risk to whole”. The committee identified that the term,
“risk to society as a whole”,
appears in paragraph 12(3)(f) of Schedule 7 and it is this term that should have been defined in paragraph 2, in place of “risk to whole”.
The committee also considered that the words,
“risk to society as a whole”,
should have been set out in full in the table in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7, rather than using the label “whole society”. This table sets out how accidents to various categories of person—employees, passengers, et cetera—should be calculated, with the label “whole society” indicating the need to show the total number of serious accidents and fatalities across all those categories; namely, across society as a whole.
I am grateful to the committee for its work and for drawing these points to the attention of the House. The Government do not consider that there will be any real impact on the practicable operation of these provisions or that there will be any possibility for confusion by the Department for Infrastructure. It remains very important that the Northern Ireland rail safety instrument, dealing as it does with a critical area, stays in place as law so as to provide the necessary confidence and certainty that the rail industry and travelling public need. I can therefore confirm that the Government will address these minor drafting points in a subsequent instrument that will be laid in advance of this instrument coming into effect on exit day. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by expressing my regret that we are discussing Northern Ireland legislation at all. I would have hoped that the Assembly would be up and running again by now. I am not apportioning blame within this Chamber but simply making it clear that I believe it is a great disadvantage to Northern Ireland that the Assembly is not sitting.
These three SIs are being made by an unusual procedure, as the Minister has made clear. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that the originally intended negative procedure should be upgraded to the affirmative procedure because of the impact on cross-border operations, especially in Northern Ireland. In the event, because these SIs were not laid until 18 February, it was too late for the usual procedure to be followed, and instead they have been laid under the urgent “made affirmative” process, rather than the usual draft procedure. Northern Ireland deserves better than this. I realise it was not the Government’s intention to have run this as close to the wire as they have, but why was it left so late to lay these SIs? I know that the Government had intended to use the negative procedure, but the fact is that the committee has the right to recommend a change of procedure, and regularly does, so it is the Government’s job to anticipate a change such as that and to allow as much time as possible.
Of course, the irony is that we did not leave the EU on 29 March, and it does not look as though we are going to be leaving any day now. So, in fact, the Government had time to do it by the usual procedure. The Government rather overstate the amount we have to do in this House and in the other place. Business is actually fairly leisurely. Therefore, it could have been done in the usual way, if only everyone had been able to anticipate the situation.
My second question is my usual one. I am concerned once again that the obligation to share information, in this case on safety issues, is being removed and replaced with a power to share information. These three SIs all deal with issues of safety, and my view is that we should not be playing politics with issues of safety and should not be risking the possibility that, either intentionally or unintentionally, safety information will be held back. I ask the Minister: when a safety certificate issued in the UK is revoked by the ORR, what about a rail company that operates in both the UK and the EU? Would the Government then still have a legal obligation to inform the EU?
As the Minister mentioned, there are temporary arrangements to carry the industry over the period after exit. My concern is that EU Part A safety certificates would be recognised for a maximum of two years after Brexit or until they expire. This procedure has been used for other transport-related SIs, and I have previously raised my concern that there is unnecessary uncertainty about this. Some safety certificates will last for two years and some will not, because they will run out earlier. There is uncertainty there.
Meanwhile, the EU has adopted regulation 2019/503, which allows UK certificates to continue to be valid for nine months after exit. My concern is that we are talking about two years in Britain and nine months for British certificates in the EU, so we do not have a consistency of approach. The EU provision appears to apply only to the Republic of Ireland and France, so I ask the Minister: what about Belgium and the Netherlands? They are regularly in receipt of trains which start in the UK, so if these provisions will not apply in Belgium and the Netherlands—as I understand from the Explanatory Memorandum—then what about those trains going beyond those two countries?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for their comments and for agreeing to meet me before discussing the regulations today. That was extremely helpful. Some of the issues I knew would come up; others, not so much. If I do not respond to all of them, I shall of course write.
I share the regret of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that there is no functioning Northern Ireland Executive; I think that we all hope that one will be in place as soon as possible. A theme raised by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord was the timing of the SIs and why noble Lords are here today to discuss them under the “made affirmative”, or urgent, procedure.
As has been pointed out by a number of people, these SIs are quite complex, particularly in terms of the legislation relating to Northern Ireland. It took a while to make sure that they were right. The noble Baroness said that Northern Ireland deserves better; I would say that actually it deserves the best. We wanted to make sure that the complexities surrounding these issues were absolutely nailed down before we laid the regulations. Timing was slightly against us—but, then again, the regulations were laid as negative; we did not expect them to be upgraded to affirmative. When they were upgraded and we looked at the parliamentary timetable, we realised that there might not have been time from that point until 29 March—there could have been time, but, as noble Lords will know, a number of committees need to consider these things—and decided that the best way forward was to lay the instruments as “made affirmative”. The noble Baroness was right to say that it is unusual, but it is not unique—I am sure that many noble Lords were here for the two debates preceding this one; they, too, were for “made affirmative” SIs. There were a number of SIs which, as we approached exit day, it was necessary to consider within the “made affirmative” procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me about 28 days—it is indeed 28 sitting days.
Lord Rosser
The Minister says quite rightly that the regulations are complex, but this is not the first set of complex regulations that has appeared from a department. Neither surely is it the first time that a department has suggested that it should be dealt with by the negative procedure and the committee has said that it should be the affirmative, and the department has agreed and it has still been done in time to put it through the proper affirmative procedure. So I ask again: why could this not be done by the Department for Transport? There is nothing unique about their being complex; there is nothing unique about a department saying that they should be negative, the committee saying that they should be affirmative and there still being time to do it through the proper affirmative procedure.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I completely accept what the noble Lord says. In certain parts of the organisations that had to deal with these things, the pressure on resources was quite significant. I am not prepared to say much more on that.
Safety and data sharing were also rightly raised by noble Lords. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, they are critical. The Government have no intention of compromising the safety of our rail network—or, indeed, anyone else’s. The Office of Rail and Road will be sharing data and we already have a very good relationship with it. I should like to go into a tiny bit more detail about this, because it is important. EU member states already have a number of cross-border rail arrangements with third countries covering a wide variety of arrangements, including border arrangements, sharing information about cases of accidents, the responsibilities of train operators—all sorts of things. For example, there is one between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and one between Poland and Russia, and both have negotiated bilateral agreements on cross-border rail arrangements. We anticipate that, as our relationship with the EU develops, we too will have these sorts of relationships. In the short term, the Office of Rail and Road will work very closely with its counterparts, as it already does, to enable it to continue to share information with EU and EEA member states. In particular, it is extremely important that we work closely with our immediate cross-border neighbours, France and the Republic of Ireland. Our engagement is going very well and we aim to sign a memorandum of understanding with both countries to enshrine co-operation agreements so that they can continue.
The noble Baroness asked what would happen if the ORR revoked a safety certificate belonging to an operator established in the EU and the UK: would the UK have a legal obligation to inform the EU? If the ORR issued a part B certificate based on an EU part A safety certificate, the ORR would be required to inform the EU safety authority that issued part A if it went ahead and revoked part B. She mentioned safety certificates that run out earlier. I believe that there is only one—most will be able to go up to the two-year sunset clause, and that organisation will be able to apply to the ORR for a new safety certificate.
Turning to the question of nine months, we have a new agreement with the EU, which has said that for nine months regulations will stay where they are. This obviously relates particularly to the Republic of Ireland and France, those being the countries we send most of our rail to, and I believe that nine months is a first step: there will obviously be more discussions to be had. The nine-month clock will start on the day we leave the EU. The noble Baroness raised an interesting point about operators going beyond France, for example. Operators are making their own arrangements to operate services beyond, and they have in place EU- issued operator licences, so I believe that people have already thought about that and are taking the appropriate steps.
The issue regarding Northern Ireland is interesting and important. It is a transferred matter and, in the absence of a functioning Northern Ireland Executive, it is right and proper that we preserve the status quo as much as we can. We therefore took the decision, given the connectedness of the network in Northern Ireland and the implications of that, that a different time limit was appropriate. Indefinite recognition of the various certificates in Northern Ireland is essentially the status quo. In the future, as it is a transferred matter, if there is a functioning Northern Ireland Executive that Executive will be able to make their own decisions. For the time being, however, it was agreed that this is the best way forward for Northern Ireland. Conversely, within Great Britain a decision has been made to match the sunset clause for these items to the sunset clause already in place for other types of rail licence.
The noble Baroness mentioned the consultation. We have carried out a fair amount of consultation. We wrote to 300 industry representatives and, as the noble Baroness mentioned, we had eight responses. I have not seen them but I will certainly write if they raised any particular issues. Workshops were also held and a technical notice came out on 12 October. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether the unions were involved in the consultations. I believe that ASLEF was invited to the workshop but was unable to attend.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the next railway package—the fourth railway package, otherwise known as the recast safety directive. There are two issues here: first, what happens if we have a deal; and secondly, what happens if we do not have a deal. During any implementation period that comes into force under the withdrawal agreement, the UK would be required to meet its EU obligations. This would include the transposition of the fourth railway package. We would obviously proceed with that in the implementation period to have it done by June 2020. If the withdrawal agreement is not ratified and the UK leaves without a deal, we will need to decide whether we will transpose the technical pillar of the fourth railway package. The decision will be made on what account to take up the fourth package as regards, for example—this is the important bit—cross-border services with the French. We will need to look at where we are and what needs to be implemented to make sure that those cross-border services can continue. There will obviously be sufficient time on both of these for scrutiny by your Lordships to ensure that these matters are conducted accordingly.
Work has already commenced on the rail safety directive. We have started the underlying work to transpose the recast safety directive as part of our existing obligations as an EU member state. As I mentioned, we expect to implement by June 2020 and have already notified the EU Commission that we will be doing this.
Will this be for ever? Status quo does not mean matching the EU. The issue is that we may—or we may not; it is not certain—want to take our safety regime in a different direction. That does not mean that our safety will be any less important to us, or that the safety of our passengers will be compromised in any way. However, it might mean that, if we diverge in the future from EU law because doing so might present opportunities for the UK to shape our railways in the way we want, the safety outcomes will be the same but our law might say something different. I am not saying that this will definitely happen; I am not saying that this is even remotely likely in the short term. But status quo certainly does not mean being in lockstep with the EU on the rail safety legislative framework in perpetuity.
I am sure there are a few questions I have missed. I will look at Hansard and make sure that I have all the responses to any remaining questions from both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
Railways (Safety Management) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Regulations laid before the House on 8 April be approved.
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 58th Report. Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Railways (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Regulations laid before the House on 8 April be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Electric Vehicles: Charging Points
Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they plan to introduce to encourage local authorities to install more charging points for electric vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the private sector has funded the majority of the UK’s 17,000 public charge points, and we want this to continue. The Government’s role is to provide the right policy environment to encourage private sector investment and limited support when necessary. We provide guidance and some funding to local authorities: around £4 million to the on-street residential scheme, £40 million to eight Go Ultra Low cities and further funds for taxi and bus infrastructure funding.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, despite that, the growth in the electric vehicle market is not as rapid as it needs to be. This is a chicken-and-egg situation. Sales of electric vehicles will not increase dramatically until users are confident that they can find a charging point. Will the Government provide stronger leadership and support to local authorities, some of which have not yet installed a single charging point? Fleet owners are responsible for half of all new cars purchased. Will the Government consider introducing a range of new incentives to encourage them to opt for EVs?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Baroness for a number of questions there. I disagree with her that growth is not rapid. We are the second-largest market for electric vehicles in Europe. I believe that the rollout to date has been very successful. For example, within the last 30 days 1,000 charge points have been introduced. The noble Baroness spoke about local authorities and we support the work they are doing. There is no more funding available but we are encouraging the private sector to step up and, with £400 million in the charging infrastructure investment fund, we believe that it will.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, would it not be a good idea for Parliament to give an example to the rest of the country? We have 487 parking spaces between this House and the other place, and I am told there are two charging points in the House of Commons and three more promised for Royal Court. How can we expect the country to take us seriously if we cannot put our own house in order?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I completely agree with my noble friend that we need more charging points within the House. I certainly used to drive but I do so no longer. I use public transport and I encourage all noble Lords to do the same.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a lot of people, if not most, live in terraced properties and the real problem is lack of infrastructure to get cars parked outside their homes to a charging point? Has she looked at the city of Oslo, which has stanchions along the kerbside, which is safe, that allow car owners to charge their cars right on their doorstep, as it were, but on the other side of the pavement? Without government investment on a huge scale, the private sector will not be able to deliver this and the targets the Government have set will not be met.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I will certainly look at Oslo. As I mentioned in my opening Answer, there is a £4 million on-street residential charging point scheme for local authorities. To date, 28 local authorities have benefited, resulting in the installation of over 1,000 charging points. The noble Lord is quite right: this is not necessarily a matter for central government, but local authorities can make sure that there is a permissive planning environment whereby, if private networks come in—I hope that they will—they are able to put up those sorts of charging points.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I drive an electric car with a range of 120 miles. Does the Minister appreciate that the problem is not so much the supply of charging points but the fact that they tend to be different? There is no uniformity. You find one but the plugging-in mechanism does not fit your car. There are many different versions. Some need payment, some do not, and some need you to subscribe. We need enforcement of uniformity across all charging points.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Baroness will be aware that we are making good progress in that area. The Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulations came into force in November 2018 and they set out a number of things that have to happen in relation to charging points. I reassure all noble Lords that the Government stand ready: where the market fails, we will step in and make sure that there are appropriate charging points. As for range anxiety, as I understand it is known, Highways England has a fund of £15 million to make sure that there is a charging point every 20 miles on 95% of the strategic road network.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, how many public electric charging points across the UK do the Government believe will be necessary and by when? On what assumption about the percentage of vehicles that will be electric is that figure based? What percentage of charging points do the Government expect to be provided by public investment—by local authorities—and what percentage by private investment?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
As I mentioned, we expect the majority of charging points to be installed through private networks. However, there is the £400 million charging infrastructure investment fund, which consists of £200 million from government and £200 million from private investors. Shell and BP, for example, both now have their own charging point networks. We expect such private companies to step up and make sure that we have the necessary charging point infrastructure to meet the growth in the market.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, will there be a sufficient supply of electricity for all these plugs?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Yes, of course there will. In all seriousness, because we have the Road to Zero strategy and are very clear about what we are aiming for, that will give certainty to the energy sector and make sure that sufficient electricity is available. Obviously, investment in low-carbon generation is taking place, and we are consulting on secondary legislation to make sure that charging points have smart functionality, which means that they can be charged off peak.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I say proudly as Mayor of Watford that we have the highest use of EVs in Hertfordshire. However, there is certainly a disconnect between the Government’s ambition for national charging infrastructure and the reliance on councils, in a piecemeal way, to come forward with more charging points. The noble Baroness is quite correct to say that, until we have standardisation, we will clearly not make the progress that we anticipate. Given that range anxiety and cost are the two main barriers, what plans do the Government have for a more integrated approach to the adoption of electric vehicles, which at the moment is piecemeal and fragmented?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
A top-down approach in this matter would probably not work. Technology is developing very rapidly at the moment, and noble Lords will know that we are seeing a vast change in the speed of charging cars and in the sorts of charge points required. Central government can provide the right policy support and, as I have said, local authorities can apply for funding, but we certainly expect the private networks to step up.
Brexit: No-deal Ferry Contracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, in light of the Article 50 extension, the ferry contracts with Brittany Ferries and DFDS have now been terminated. The National Audit Office estimated the total termination cost to be £56 million. I am pleased to tell the House that the figure for termination is £43.8 million. Furthermore, the total amount for termination fees and running costs is a little over £50 million. These contracts were an important insurance policy to ensure the continued movement of medicines and other essential goods.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that response, which indicated the cost to the taxpayer of the contracts with Brittany Ferries and DFDS. Can the Minister confirm what actual benefit the taxpayer got in return for what I think she said was £43.8 million? What services were provided to the taxpayer? On top of that, the Government have already had to pay £33 million to Eurotunnel in return for no services whatever but to settle a legal case challenging the procurement process for the ferry contracts, and the DfT may now be facing legal action from P&O Ferries on the grounds that Eurotunnel has been unduly favoured. The Government’s answer is no doubt that they had no alternative but to make contingency arrangements because of their own failure over two years to conclude an acceptable Brexit deal, but they cannot argue that in relation to the £33 million to Eurotunnel or any payments to P&O Ferries. The Government always talk about getting value for money. In this case, we have had a lot of money but no value to the taxpayer. Is the Minister now going to apologise for the unnecessary expense that has been incurred and for the failures of the Government, and of the Secretary of State in particular?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I would like to focus on the first of those questions: what exactly was the benefit to the taxpayer? The benefit was that the taxpayer had an insurance policy. Like many organisations, the Government are able to take out insurance policies, and these contracts were precisely that. The benefit to the taxpayer is that the Government were able to ensure the continued movement of absolutely critical goods—what we call “class 1 goods”—into this country in the event of no deal. I am fairly sure that the noble Lord would have been the first to criticise the Government had these goods not got through.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Following my noble friend’s analogy, can she explain why we have given up the insurance policy before we have the certainty of knowing that we will not have no deal? Can she also tell us what the total cost to the taxpayer has been of our failure to leave on 29 March?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord is right that this particular insurance policy falls away because these were six-month contracts, and now that we have the extension to 31 October the contracts are obviously not needed. These contracts are very visible, but they are actually an extremely small proportion of our no-deal planning. A total of £4 billion has been put in place as an insurance package to make sure that, in the event of no deal, which remains the legal default, we will be able to protect our citizens.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, every time I think that the Secretary of State has extracted the last vestige of farce from these ferry contracts, he seems to plumb new depths. I want to take up the point about P&O. Can the Minister explain to us whether the Government are facing court action from P&O and what stage any action is at in that case? The Government claim to have paid £800,000 for the legal advice on which these contracts were based. That is an awfully large sum to pay for duff advice—if indeed the advice that was given was followed. Can we have the Minister’s assurance that the Government will review how and from whom they seek advice on such matters?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
There were a couple of points there from the noble Baroness, for which I am grateful. Knowing what I know now from my short time in the department and from my time as a Defra Whip, I believe that, had I been the Secretary of State, I would have made the same decisions. These are very important contracts. The other thing to be aware of is that the contracts had to be as flexible as possible. Many will say, “Oh, they do not seem particularly flexible”, but this is all dependent on the maritime market, which is not the same as other markets. The maritime market operates in periods of weeks and months rather than hours and days. We believe that the legal advice is appropriate. I can confirm that a case is being brought by P&O, but obviously I cannot comment on an ongoing legal case.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask the noble Baroness two things? First, where did the money come from? Has it come from government contingency funds or out of the direct expenditure plans of her department? Secondly, if this insurance deal is not to be repeated, as seems to be implied, do I take it that the Government have firmly—and will in the future—set themselves against a no-deal Brexit?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I believe that the money will have come from the no-deal Brexit funds made available from the Treasury. If that is not the case, I will of course write to the noble Lord. I did not say that these contracts would not be repeated. The situation is that no deal is still the legal default, so what is going to happen next is pretty much what happened last time—
Noble Lords
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I really wish I had not paused for breath at that particular moment. Discussions will happen with the Department of Health and Social Care, Defra and BEIS, and we will all look at the amount of class 1 goods that need to come into the country. DfT will then be tasked to ensure that that can go ahead.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
Following on from that answer, will my noble friend commit to publishing a comprehensive update on the Government’s preparedness for no deal?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
It would be inappropriate for me to commit to that at this time, but I am sure that the Government are listening.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister suggested that the legal advice gave flexibility. If that is the case, why was there not the flexibility to roll over these contracts in case there is a no-deal scenario on 31 October? Surely that is what flexibility should have offered.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I was trying to get across to noble Lords the complexity of the maritime market. Flexibility is possible, but it is not unlimited. For example, DFDS had to charter new vessels from very far away to fulfil these contracts. Other vessels had to be reconfigured. Those vessels will now need to go back to what they were beforehand to take on passengers. The noble Baroness looks incredulous, but the contract offered extremely good value to the taxpayer.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Are the Government planning an out-of-court settlement with the ferry companies or do they intend to contest the case?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that we have reached a settlement with the ferry companies, as I pointed out earlier, and that the termination fees are £43.8 million. It is clear that we have co-operated with the ferry companies, and we are grateful to them for the amount of mitigation that they have been able to do to reduce the amount of money that we have had to pay. We have had negotiations with them. We tried to sell as many tickets as possible to reduce the cost to the taxpayer and the ferry companies have cancelled sailings. We are grateful for their co-operation and believe that this is a fair settlement of the contract.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, if it is necessary, which I hope it is not, to take out further insurance policies of this nature, can we be absolutely sure that the ferry companies that we contract with will actually have some ferries?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for that question. Yes, we can be absolutely sure. Perhaps I may address the point about Seaborne, as it seems to be the elephant in the room. Not a single taxpayer pound was paid to Seaborne. The management of Seaborne perhaps made some very serious errors, but the biggest thing that happened was that its credible partner and backer, Arklow Shipping, pulled out of the deal.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, is it not the fact that this was not insurance for the taxpayer but a political gesture by the Conservative Party and Prime Minister—which was demonstrated by the fact that the Prime Minister has told MPs this afternoon that when she made her “no deal is better than a bad deal” statement in the Lancaster House speech in 2017, it was “in the abstract”? She has now disowned it, which shows that it was never a real issue but was just political grandstanding.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
No deal remains the legal default. I remind the noble Baroness that had no deal happened—obviously, we hope that it does not in future, either—there would have been a significant constriction of flows of trade across the short straits between Dover and France to perhaps 12% to 13% of what is currently is. That is why we had to take out these contracts. The contracts were to other ports; they made sure that important class 1 goods—medicines and things that noble Lords would find to be extremely important and beneficial to our citizens—would get through.
Railways: Midland Main Line
Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Midland Mainline will be electrified all the way to Sheffield.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the midland main line enhancement programme will extend electrification from Bedford to Kettering and, subject to design, Market Harborough. Further to this, HS2 phase 2B will electrify the line from Clay Cross to Sheffield. The Department for Transport has taken the decision not to extend electrification beyond this, but instead to deliver new bi-mode trains for intercity services. This will mean that passengers benefit from faster journeys, more seats and better-quality trains.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I welcome the Minister to her new post and wish her well. However, the Royal Institute of Mechanical Engineers and the Rail Industry Association point out that hydrogen bi-modal trains, which look to be piloted on this line, cannot exceed 87 miles per hour and cost more over the lifespan than electrification, while the capacity for storage means that they are not suitable for high-speed, long-distance railway trains. Why are those organisations wrong and the department correct?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words and pay tribute to my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Sugg. People say to me, “She was a very good Minister, you know?”—yes, I know exactly what they mean. Bi-mode trains at the moment run on electricity and diesel, depending on electrification of the track. GWR is already running these trains, and they will be available on LNER on 19 May. The noble Lord talks about hydrogen cell trains, which are a very important development. Abellio, which has the East Midlands franchise, will trial those trains from 2026. With all due respect to current experts, I expect there to be improvements in these trains and we will see how they work when they come into trial in 2026.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it is very rare that I am in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, but on this issue I am. I welcome the noble Baroness to her post and I think people will say the same about her when she leaves it as we feel about the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, which is that she was a damn good Minister. We have some of the worst rolling stock and the worst service on the most-used line. It is 160 miles from Sheffield to London—I say “Sheffield to London” rather than “London to Sheffield”—with all the major urban areas in between. We need not only immediate action but real reassurance that we will get the kind of service that people deserve.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. We recognise that there are challenges across our rail network. That is why we are investing £48 billion over the next five years. This is the biggest modernisation of our rail network in more than a century and represents more than half of our national transport budget. The improvements to the midland main line will benefit from £1.5 billion. There will be faster journeys and more seats, but the important thing to recognise is that there will also be reduced disruption for passengers as the improvements come online.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Will careful consideration be given to heating on the trains to Sheffield, for the sake of passengers who do not wear ties?
Lord Lexden
Should we not also wish our excellent new Transport Minister well as she prepares to familiarise herself more fully with London’s road network by taking part in the marathon?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend, although I am not sure of the heating benefits of a tie, having never worn one. Of course, we must look at passengers’ comfort when they travel. Many factors make for a good passenger experience. A recent survey showed that the age and quality of the trains is very important.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Minister. I agree that she has a hard act to follow in the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, but I am sure that she will do so with flying colours. This Government have a record second to none when it comes to scrapping or deferring major railway electrification schemes. Indeed, it now appears as though the future of HS2, which the Minister mentioned, may become a political football in the quest for votes in the forthcoming Conservative Party leadership campaign. Two days ago the Environment Secretary, Mr Gove, told the 16 year-old climate change campaigner Greta Thunberg that she had been “heard”. If that statement was not merely a public relations platitude, why do the Government and some of their leading Members abandon or defer, and threaten to abandon or defer, major railway electrification projects in favour of the continuation of less environmentally friendly diesel or part-diesel services?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Electrification is merely a form of propulsion for trains. It is not the be-all and end-all. It comes at a cost, sometimes to local communities. For example, if we use bi-mode trains in diesel mode—I refer to modern diesel engines—there is no need for the intrusive wires and masts that concern local communities. The environmental impact of these trains is less than that of current ones. I believe that any thoughts of HS2’s demise are greatly exaggerated.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Millions of pounds have already been spent on raising the bridges on the 22 miles that will lie in the middle of the two electrified sections of this line. Is it not time to learn lessons from the Great Western electrification, and accept that electrification can now be done for half the cost of that original project and that, as they currently stand, bi-mode trains are heavier and more costly to run and maintain? Does the Minister accept that the whole line should be electrified?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am afraid to disappoint the noble Baroness but the Minister does not accept that. We looked at the costs and benefits of the full electrification of this line and concluded that, in terms of passenger experience, the same benefits can be achieved by going a different way. She mentioned the money that has been spent on bridges. However, it was not wasted: it has improved the stability of those bridges, many of which were fairly old, and means that the passage of freight is now easier.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, Transport Ministers stated last year that all diesel propulsion would be removed from the network by 2040 to help with carbon reduction. I welcome the Minister but, according to her figures, all these bi-mode trains will be only 14 years old and will still have a half-life by the point at which the Government are supposed to have cancelled all diesels. What will happen to them?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Ah, but the devil is in the detail. We said that we will end diesel-only trains by 2040, so bi-modes do not count. It is worth pointing out that the bi-modes we expect Abellio to use under the East Midlands franchise are in design and development. There will be many new improvements and we look forward to welcoming these trains.