Passenger Train Services

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble and learned Lord is completely right: it is regrettable that some services have to be significantly scaled back, and these are being kept under review. I reassure him that station staff are available to help disabled passengers transfer between trains as necessary.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

Can we thank all the staff who are working on the railways through this crisis and putting special arrangements in place? Given that the business model of the franchise is of course bust now and is likely to remain so after the crisis, what is the Government’s thinking: to try to reconstitute franchises on a new basis afterwards, or to move further in the direction of nationalisation?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to all transport workers; they have done an astounding job during this crisis. At the moment, we do not know what the long-term implications for rail and indeed other public transport modes will be. However, we believe that there remains an urgent case for modernisation and reform, so we will be looking at the recommendations in the White Paper that will come out of the Williams Rail Review. They will be at the heart of any changes that we make to put the passenger at the heart of our rail system.

Smart Motorways

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. She is referring to stopped vehicle detection, which is just one type of technology and the safety case is not dependent on it. There are two other technologies that can also make sure that stopped vehicles are seen. They are MIDAS, as she well knows, and the CCTV that covers all elements of the smart motorway system. I would like the noble Baroness to consider one thing: does she accept that, if we were suddenly to turn around and put back the hard shoulder on all these motorways, by putting roadworks on those roads, we would immediately make those roads less safe?

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister give the House the accident rate on smart motorways as opposed to conventional motorways?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, that was the absolute crux of the 79-page report that we have prepared. We looked at it in two different ways. We looked at the average numbers and then delved down into the detail on whether a motorway, when it becomes a smart motorway, is more or less safe. I therefore encourage the noble Lord to read the 79-page report, if he has time over the coming weeks. From that, he will see that, in most ways, smart motorways are safer. In a smaller number of ways, on specific things, they may not be, but that again is within the margin of error. We are acting on these 18 points because it is absolutely important that people should feel safe as well as being safe.

HS2

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, yesterday was the 10th anniversary of my announcement of HS2 to the House. Taking account of what has happened in that period, Parliament and the country should be reasonably proud of the progress. This is the biggest infrastructure project that the country has engaged in since the Victorians. My noble friend Lord Faulkner mentioned the excavation that is taking place at Curzon Street at the moment. There are wonderful pictures on Twitter of the discovery of the original turntable for the steam trains that has just been excavated as part of that.

The work is proceeding. Parliament has given its consent to the first phase. It is the single biggest infrastructure project that the country has authorised since the completion of the Great Central Railway in 1899. It continues as a consensus project between the major political parties. It was begun by the Labour Government, continued by a coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, and has continued under two different Conservative Governments since.

Being always an optimist and looking forward, to those who say we cannot do big infrastructure projects in this country and we certainly cannot build railways in straight lines because that involves too many concessions to protesters and so forth, I say: that is not true. Where Government, Parliament and the major political parties are aligned and put the national interest first, we are able to move on these projects and HS2 is an outstanding example.

The problem is that the Government at the moment are only half behind HS2. In the Statement the Prime Minister made on 11 February, he gave what I should call the fourth green light to the project, or a continuing green light, like those trains going 125 miles per hour down the Great Western Railway, about which my noble friend is such a great expert. For as long as the green light continues, you can keep up the progress, but as soon as you see the amber one, you start to slow down. We have had a continuing green light for the first phase, but the Government have now put the amber light on all of the subsequent developments north of Birmingham.

A great Liberal Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, famously said, “When traversing a chasm, it is advisable to do so in one leap”. We were supposed to be moving on the development of the line north of Birmingham, which is absolutely integral to the project. The idea of building a high-speed line which is supposed to link London, the Midlands and the north, and stopping it at Birmingham, is of course absurd. The line obviously needs to go through to Manchester and Leeds. Just at the point when we were able to put before Parliament and develop this scheme as an integrated project, the Government have tried to split the difference with the critics, which is always a huge a huge mistake in my experience of government. We need only listen to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to know that we cannot meet her half way. She is not capable of meeting half way; what she wants is to stop the thing. She does not want to see compromises on the way. Having a review of what happens north of Birmingham is not going to propitiate the noble Baroness. It is going to whet her appetite into thinking that once she gets going in the courts and with her protesters she will stop the whole scheme.

The right thing to do in this situation, where it is manifestly in the public interest—we need this rail capacity and we need the connectvity between our major cities—is to get on with it. The plan has been developed, was published, was agreed in principle by Parliament, and has stood the test of successive reviews. The right thing is to go ahead with all deliberate speed. The Prime Minister’s Statement on 11 February gave the green light for the continuation of the development of the scheme from London to Birmingham, which is already being built. Your Lordships need only go to Euston to see that the whole place is a massive construction site. HS2 Ltd is based in Birmingham, there are thousands of people based there too, and the excavation work is already beginning at Curzon Street station. So the Government gave the green light to continuation of that scheme, and they revived what is called the phase 2a Bill, the extension from Birmingham through to Crewe, although that had already started in Parliament in the middle of last year and was subject to a significant delay by last year’s political turbulence. What was supposed to happen this year was the introduction of the phase 2b Bill—the extension of the line from Crewe to Manchester, and from Birmingham through the junction station of Toton between Nottingham and Derby, and then up to Sheffield and through to Leeds.

In the timeframe set out by the Government when they gave the go-ahead in 2013 to the revised HS2 timetable—it was much slower than I would have taken it forward in 2010 but would at least have kept it moving—the plan was for the phase 2b legislation to be published this year. We already know the route, unless the Government are going to pull the whole scheme up by the roots and start again. The issue now is getting a political decision to proceed with the legislation for phase 2b, which means taking the clear decisions on routes, publishing the Bill, and putting it through the hybrid Bill process which is already starting with 2a. If this was being done properly, what would have happened was a direct continuation from the phase 2a Bill to the phase 2b Bill, and we could have treated this as a single project, have a single construction timeframe, and even try something really radical. This Government say they believe in the north—why could we not start constructing the line from the north southwards, as well as from London going northwards? It could be done in a much shorter timescale, it could give a much bigger impetus to development in the north, and it could also save a great deal of money. Extending this timeframe will add significantly to the costs of the overall project.

What always happens when a Government are in limbo, as they are on phase 2b, is a cascade of waffle. The telltale sign of a cascade of waffle is a Government Statement that comes out on a Friday afternoon. On 11 February, the Prime Minister said that there would be a further review of HS2 going north. We asked when the review would be announced and what the terms of reference would be, and the information was then smuggled out on a Friday afternoon with no press statement and no fanfare whatever. The reason it was smuggled out on a Friday afternoon was that between 11 February, when the first announcement of the Government’s policy on HS2 was made by the Prime Minister, and the declaration of the terms of reference and review of the northern phase of HS2, a huge delay had already been introduced.

The Prime Minister said that there would be a six-month review, and perhaps I may deal with that. We have just had a seven-month review of HS2 that was originally billed by the Prime Minister last July as a six-week review. Let us follow this through. The six-week review became a seven-month review. That seven-month review, the conclusions of which my noble friend Lord Faulkner read, recommended that phase 2b of HS2 should proceed. It did not set out qualifications or recommend a further review; it said that it should proceed now.

Instead, the Government announced a six-month review. However—this is the reason the Statement came out on a Friday afternoon—that six-month review has already become a nine-month review, and that is before it has even started. In the review’s terms of reference, which were smuggled out on a Friday afternoon, we are told that the review will now conclude by the end of the year. Perhaps I may let noble Lords into another trick of government: when a statement includes words as vague as “the end of the year”, that almost certainly means well into next year. In my estimation, in terms of taking HS2 forward north of Birmingham, the effect of the Government trying to traverse this chasm in two leaps will be at least a two-year delay and probably a much longer delay because of the discontinuity involved in the phasing.

When you read the statement that was smuggled out on the Friday afternoon, you see that there is even more waffle. Perhaps I may read the key paragraph and deconstruct it for the House:

“The Oakervee review concluded that for Phase 2b of HS2 … a Y-shaped network was the right strategic answer for the country.”


That is completely right—that is what it says. However, it goes on to say that

“Phase 2b needs to be considered as part of an Integrated Rail Plan for the north and Midlands which also includes Northern Powerhouse Rail, Midlands Rail Hub, and other major Network Rail schemes to ensure these are scoped, designed, delivered, and can be operated as an integrated network.”

That may all be true but none of it is any reason for delaying the development of phase 2b north of Birmingham. Phase 2b would not have been due to open until 2032 if we had introduced the legislation this year, but delaying it means that it will be much closer to 2040. There is plenty of time to work out how the development of HS2 will integrate with other developments in the north. The key question is: are the Government going to stick to the Y-shaped route? If they are, they have to serve Manchester Airport, Manchester, Toton, Sheffield and Leeds. Once you have taken those key strategic decisions, the question of integration is how that line relates to the other lines. That is not a reason for delaying the construction and planning of HS2 north of Birmingham unless the aim is to change that route.

I can see that the noble Viscount is encouraging me to wind up. I assume that the Government are not seeking to change that route, so the right thing for them to do now is to scrap this further review. That would simply reaffirm the decision to proceed with phase 2b now, to publish the Bill later this year, and to do those things which in my day in government we used to think was our job, which was to take big decisions, make big investments and just get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for enabling us, once again, to get the HS2 horse out of the stable for a quick canter round the track. I will focus my response on the route, the speed and the stations and will cover as many other topics as I can as time allows. I will of course write to cover any omissions or to provide more detail.

With the right reforms in place, HS2 will become the spine of the country’s transport network, bringing our biggest cities closer together, boosting productivity and rebalancing opportunity fairly across the country. This Government’s decision to proceed follows careful consideration of Douglas Oakervee’s independent review into HS2 and wider evidence, including the phase 1 full business case, which is imminent. The Oakervee report has now been published and sets out what the Prime Minister described as the

“clinching case for high-speed rail”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/20; col. 712]

Each of the issues being debate today—the route, speed and stations—have been carefully considered by the Government following not only the Oakervee Review but years of planning, development, public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, taking a full range of views into account in making their decisions.

As noted by many noble Lords, HS2 has been a long time in the making—and there is still a little way to go—but the reasoning behind the design of HS2 began long before the Oakervee Review. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out, this has been supported by successive Governments and, since the publication in 2006 of the Eddington Transport Study, they have affirmed their goal to invest in transport infrastructure to meet growing demand for north-south movement and to strategically rebalance the economy. Between 2009 and 2012, domestic aviation and new motorways were appraised as modal alternatives to rail to meet these requirements, but rail was preferred on the basis of capacity, journey time and environmental impacts. A new conventional speed railway and upgrades to existing railways were also considered. The conclusion was that a new high-speed railway is the best option to meet the stated policy goals of improving transport capacity and connectivity between the UK’s largest cities and facilitating long-term economic growth.

Following the conclusion to progress a new high-speed railway, various scheme designs were considered for HS2. The current Y scheme was selected ahead of alternative designs on the basis of its relative affordability, journey times and environmental impact. For phase 1, the route was then refined by the passage of the phase 1 Bill through the Select Committee process, with some significant amendments being made. As such, the Government are confident in HS2’s design, specification and strategic objectives, which the Oakervee Review confirmed.

The route for HS2 has been designed to provide much needed rail capacity, primarily along one of the UK’s busiest rail corridors—the west coast main line. This route is currently the main route for passengers between London and major cities in the Midlands and the north-west, including Birmingham and Manchester. Since HS2 uses brand-new, dedicated lines, it will also free up space for services on the existing network. Network Rail estimates that more than 100 other towns and cities could benefit from this released capacity, and this Government are looking beyond that and looking to connect more towns and smaller places to the rail network, with funding to reopen some Beeching closures. Unfortunately, I have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, because I have no further information on that, but I will write to him if there is any available.

Some 25 towns and cities will be directly served by HS2. The Government have consulted extensively on its route, through public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, and taken into account reviews such as the one most recently led by Douglas Oakervee. Clearly, the Government are conscious that, even with extensive consultation, communities along the route will continue to have concerns about the route chosen for the railway. It is impossible to construct a project of the size and scale of HS2 without affecting some people’s private properties. Where that is the case, we want to make sure that property owners are fairly compensated and that their cases are dealt with sensitively and with dignity and respect.

The phase 1 route was intended to minimise impacts on the natural environment. In this respect, the Chilterns tunnel was extended during the Bill’s parliamentary passage and many ancient woodland sites have been avoided. I note the comparison that was made—I forget by which noble Lord—between this and the construction of the A21. I thought that was extremely interesting. Certainly, the designers of HS2 have done their best to avoid as many ancient woodland sites as possible. It is true to say that HS2 Ltd has on occasion fallen short in its response to communities and property owners, which is why, in responding to the Oakervee Review, the Government have committed to looking at strengthening the role of the HS2 residents’ commissioner.

The speed of HS2 was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and many others. I have said before and I will say again that it is not all about speed. It is about capacity. The focus on how fast the trains will run has detracted from the wider intended benefits of the project. We know that the west coast main line is full, and that we will get new capacity and connectivity from HS2. HS2 is procuring trains capable of speeds of up to 360 kph. As the noble Lord pointed out, why would it not if such trains are available? However, the timetable assumes an operating speed of 330 kph. The extra 30 kph will allow the system to catch up should any delays occur.

Both the Oakervee Review and its former deputy chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, separately agreed that a reduction in speed could cut costs. However, as both also pointed out, major savings could be achieved only through significant changes to the route design and alignment, which would require a completely new Act of Parliament for HS2 phase 1. Not only would this delay the start of construction by several years, causing uncertainty to people and blight to communities along the route, but any savings would be offset by the additional costs of a new hybrid Bill and environmental statement. The debate on reducing speed is not new; it has been considered many times and this Government believe that the right balance has been struck.

As with the route, the location of HS2 stations have been thoroughly tested, not only through public consultation but through parliamentary scrutiny and debate and reviews. The choice and location of the four phase 1 stations, at Euston, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange and Birmingham Curzon Street, were tested by the Select Committee process for the HS2 phase 1 Bill, which received Royal Assent back in 2017. Of course, it is no secret that taking a new high-speed train line into the centre of London will be complex, and we have had the debate as to whether Old Oak Common would be a good permanent terminus. I believe that, having considered all the evidence, most noble Lords who took part in that debate agreed that it would be good to get the train going all the way to Euston.

On Calvert, specifically raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, some of the key conclusions from Doug Oakervee’s review remain outstanding. The Government will respond to the Oakervee conclusion on passive provision for a station at Calvert in due course.

I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, bang the drum for Crewe, which turns out not to be the gateway to the north after all, but the gateway to Wales.

North of Crewe, there are plans for four further new stations: at Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Toton and Leeds, which are all part of the plans for phase 2b, which have already been subject to public consultation. To repeat an old joke, the Prime Minister has been clear that

“we are not asking whether it is phase 2b or not 2b. That is not the question.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/20; col. 713.]

There is no amber light, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, stated. The question is how it will proceed when it comes to integration with all the other major rail projects that the Government are financing in the north. That is why we are working with the National Infrastructure Commission and regional leaders to develop an integrated rail plan for the north and Midlands. It is not a review but a plan. Tens of billions of pounds are at stake in a number of rail schemes across the north and the Midlands, and we must get it absolutely right.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is doing a good job of reading out the brief from the department. However, could she help us by telling us when she expects phase 2b will therefore be open?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I wrote some of this brief, so I feel a little offended. I do not have that particular piece of data to hand, which I am disappointed about, but I will certainly write to the noble Lord when I can get it from my officials at the department.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands– Crewe) Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Motion to revive Bill
Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support the Motion and join the Minister in paying tribute to noble Lords who have agreed to serve on the Select Committee. However, as she is aware, the extension of HS2 from Birmingham to Crewe—the phase 2a Bill we are talking about—is integrally linked to the 2b provisions that will extend HS2 from Crewe to Manchester and from Birmingham to Leeds.

In the Statement of policy made two weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that there would be a further review of the northern elements of HS2 covered by phase 2b. He indicated that the review would last about six months, but no detail has been given so far. Because it is so vital to understanding the implications of 2a, can the Minister tell the House more about the review? Who will conduct it? What will the timescale be? When will the Government publish the terms of reference? When will the review start? Is she aware that there is serious concern in Crewe, Manchester, Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Scotland—where HS2 will ultimately terminate—that, if the review is unduly delayed, we will end up with a high-speed line that goes to Birmingham and Crewe but does not extend these vital benefits to the north?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I endorse what my noble friend has said. It is important that consideration is given to the further extension, particularly to Scotland. In addition, there have been reports that China has expressed interest in taking over the construction of the high-speed link, and that it could do it more quickly and cheaply. Is that a serious proposal? Is it being looked at by the Government? If so, when will it be considered by Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and his new friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for their interventions in this very short HS2 debate—which I feared was going to turn into a much larger debate; but I am sure there will be many of those to come.

First, I will address the comments about the integrated rail plan—which I point out is a rail plan, not a rail review. Obviously, it is being led by the Secretary of State for Transport, and he will have assistance from the National Infrastructure Commission, as well as from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which, as noble Lords will know, is taking a much closer look at the way that large projects are being run in government; indeed, this afternoon I have a meeting with it on roads.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, will be relieved to know that the terms of reference for the plan have already been published—they were published last Friday—so he can look at them and I will be happy to answer any further questions he may have. We aim to publish the integrated rail plan—IRP—by the end of the year to ensure clarity on how best to proceed with HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail, the Midlands rail hub and all the other major projects in the Midlands and the north, because it is essential that these projects work well together in order that we can maximise the opportunities they provide.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked whether China will be building the railway. China’s involvement has not come to my attention, apart from some stuff in the media, but if I can find anything out, I will write to him.

As for Crewe, services on HS2 will run into Crewe station. I have visited Crewe station and it is undergoing significant redevelopment, which I think will be hugely beneficial to Crewe and the services that will be coming into it.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned the location of stations. I fear that at this point we get into the whole HS2 debate and I might just leave that one for another day: I am sure there will be many more opportunities to discuss that.

As I said, passing this Motion will give a lot of closure to those who are affected by the Bill.

[Lord Adonis]

Before the Minister sits down, I would be grateful for her further response. I note that “six months” has already become “the end of the year”, which is already a significant extension. She said that this review will be led by the Secretary of State for Transport, but we were led to understand there would be a new HS2 Minister, who I understand the Government also announced last week. Is this an HS2 Minister who is not, in fact, really responsible for HS2?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

No, not at all. As the noble Lord knows, all Ministers within the department are ultimately responsible to the Secretary of State, and that includes the HS2 Minister. The noble Lord will be very pleased to know that Andrew Stephenson has been appointed Minister of State in the Department for Transport with specific responsibilities to oversee HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail, which of course is closely integrated, and the trans-Pennine upgrade. I beg to move.

High Speed 2 (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, when I was Secretary of State for Transport, they called me the “thin controller”. Whether or not that was true, I bear some responsibility for this scheme and should therefore participate in the debate.

My noble friend Lord Hollick referred to the National Infrastructure Commission, which I had the privilege of founding and was its first chairman. I agree entirely with him that it should be put on a statutory basis. We need much stronger and more robust long-term infra- structure planning in this country. Having a permanent commission on a statutory basis would be a good step forward. However, when I chaired the National Infrastructure Commission, one of my principle recommendations—I urge it on the House very strongly —was to avoid the curse of stop-start infrastructure planning, which has bedevilled our development of infrastructure over the past 100 years, and which we are in acute danger of doing again with HS2.

I pay great tribute to the work of the Economic Affairs Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but he presented his report as if these issues were being considered for the first time when the committee debated them. They have been considered exhaustively since the scheme was first announced, and I had the privilege of presenting it to this House on 11 March 2010. Not only have they been considered exhaustively but they have been decided by Parliament. Four years ago, on 23 March 2016, the legislation that is now being implemented to build the line from London to the West Midlands was agreed by the House of Commons by 399 votes to 42 votes. That is one of the most emphatic votes in favour of a large project in the history of Parliament. That came after months of consideration by a hybrid Bill committee of the other House looking at all the issues which my noble friend Lord Hollick and the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Kerr, have raised.

The issue of whether to terminate at Old Oak Common or go through to Euston was considered exhaustively by the Select Committee—I could go through all the arguments for the House. It is true that a lot of passengers will wish to transfer to the Elizabeth Line when it is completed—another project that is over budget and delayed. But it is also the case that there are big resilience factors in having the whole of the rail traffic in this country coming from the north and the Midlands—as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, the Midlands is a crucial part of the scheme—decanting at one station on to just one line. You have only the Elizabeth Line if you terminate at Old Oak Common, whereas coming through to Euston, which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, does not seem to think is in central London, there are another three lines—I am all in favour of the arch coming back, like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but one could debate that too. Once you join up properly with St Pancras, which is part of the scheme, you will also link in with High Speed 1 and a whole array of other services.

The issues of commuter and freight services have been raised. They were considered exhaustively by the HS2 company that advised me in 2010 and by the hybrid Bill committee before that vote of 399 to 42 in the House of Commons. A key issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in respect of commuter and freight services is the freeing up of capacity by HS2, by taking all the long-distance trains off the west coast main line; a lot of them off the Midland main line, because the service is to Sheffield; and a lot of them off the east coast main line, which goes up to York and Newcastle. They would all go on to the HS2 line, thus freeing up huge capacity to run additional commuter and freight services into the West Midlands, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and Newcastle.

The other vitally important issue is that there is no such thing as a free lunch—I wish there were. If we are not going to invest in HS2, we will have to do massive upgrades of the existing lines. When I was Secretary of State for Transport, the very first public engagement I undertook was to reopen the west coast main line after the upgrade which had taken place. It was a modest upgrade by comparison with HS2 to allow for the faster running of some trains, some additional train lengthening and some additional trains. Many noble Lords will remember that upgrade. For the best part of 10 years, services were disrupted on the west coast main line almost every other weekend. The price, as it was then—now you would have to double or treble the figure—was £10 billion, of which £1 billion was spent on compensating the train companies for not running any trains. I can tell noble Lords that if you are running a train company, the easiest thing you can do is to have big upgrade work done on your lines so that you are given huge payments for not running any trains at all. That is what train operating companies love most: being paid billions of pounds for not running any trains.

If you proceed with the conventional upgrades that would be required—they are huge; you are conducting open heart surgery on a moving patient—you will end up with a colossal cost, estimated by advisers in 2010 to be more, in cash terms, than the cost of HS2. When the Cameron Government made their alternative evaluation, they came up with a credible alternative upgrade scheme that would provide a quarter of the capacity of HS2 for half of the cost. All that is out there: this is not new information; it has all been published. The issue facing us is whether we are now going to do what Parliament itself authorised and build this line. It is under construction at the moment; we are not talking about giving it the green light. Colossal construction is already taking place at Euston: £9 billion has been spent and 2,000 people are working on the scheme. It is being constructed.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is absolutely right to differentiate between sunk costs and future costs, but the crucial point is that if we are going to proceed with this scheme, to pull it up by the roots now with another big evaluation that would add further to the costs would be simply to repeat the curse of British infrastructure planning. The reason we have such a substandard infrastructure compared with so many other advanced industrialised countries is that we start projects, stop them, start them up again, stop them and then start them again. That is an accurate description of what has happened with HS2; this is the fifth review that has taken place since 2010, and the third since Parliament voted in favour of it by 10 to one.

My noble friend Lord Hunt is absolutely right to stress the importance of this project to the West Midlands. This is not a scheme that predominantly benefits the south. Some 200 of the 330 route miles of HS2 will run between the West Midlands and the north-west to Manchester, and the West Midlands to West Yorkshire up to Leeds. This will be transformational for connectivity between the Midlands and the north, and within the north. A large part of the northern powerhouse will depend on HS2, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned the line from Liverpool to Manchester. Half of the northern powerhouse railway from Liverpool to Manchester will be on HS2 lines, so they need to be, and should be, drawn together.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Why is all that not part of phase 1? Why is phase 1 all about tunnelling under Primrose Hill?

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, this is 330 miles-worth of line. If it could all be put in place in one phase, that would be great. However, setting up a project of that size all in one phase would carry huge risks. Again, I hesitate to keep pointing this out to the House, but all of this has been considered: whether there should be one phase of HS2 with 330 miles of line or whether it should be divided.

I want to make a final point—

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Adonis]

My noble friend will be speaking in a few minutes, so he can make his point in his own speech.

The Mayor of the West Midlands is a Conservative, and a man who I hold in high regard as a former managing director of John Lewis. He has a very strong sense of the economic imperatives driving his great county. He has written to your Lordships, and these are the concluding words of his letter:

“So far the promise of the new high-speed rail link alone has had a transformational impact on the Midlands. Inward investment is increasing, evidenced by the 43% increase in the number of jobs created in 2017/18. On top of this, HS2 has the potential to add £14 billion to the West Midlands economy and support 100,000 jobs in the region. No other planned infrastructure project can come close to that, and if the government is serious about ‘levelling up’ the UK’s regions then HS2 is the place to start.”


I agree with him. HS2 is the place to start, so let us not pull the whole thing up by the roots again and end up doubling or trebling the cost.

Railways: Trans-Pennine Freight

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I can indeed update the noble Lord about what is going on: work is continuing apace to understand the amount of freight demand that is not currently being and may be met in future by reopening this line, as well as to look at the commercial viability of the scheme. I undertake to him that we will publish all the reports when these important issues have been fully explored and we understand the full picture.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm or deny the story on the front page of the Financial Times that the HS2 review is considering axing its eastern leg? Is she aware that this report is being treated with great alarm in Edinburgh, Newcastle, Durham, York, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby and Birmingham?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am sure that the noble Lord knows better than me that one should not believe everything one reads in the newspapers. However, as he will also know, the Oakervee review is taking a detailed look at all elements of HS2 and its phasing and will report soon.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, HS2 is a major infrastructure programme that has had substantial parliamentary support from both Houses over its development to date. The Bill before your Lordships’ House relates to phase 2a of HS2, which would extend the line from the West Midlands to Crewe. Before I move on to the substance of the Bill, I want to draw attention to the Oakervee review and the recent advice received from Allan Cook, the chairman of HS2 Ltd. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government have asked Douglas Oakervee, supported by a panel with a wide range of views, to review HS2. Noble Lords will also be aware of the Statement laid last week by the Transport Secretary regarding advice recently received from Allan Cook. The Oakervee review will assemble and test all the existing evidence, including the recent advice from Allan Cook to allow the Government to make properly informed decisions on the future of the project.

The Transport Secretary made it clear when launching the review that the review itself should not unnecessarily delay HS2. This means continuing with preparatory work, including the enabling work for phase 1, and progressing the legislation for phase 2a. It is important to mention the review and the chairman’s advice, but giving the Bill a Second Reading does not affect the conduct of the review or prejudge its outcome. Indeed, I wish to make it clear that the Bill seeks permissive powers, to be able to construct phase 2a. It does not require the railway to be built.

The focus of this Bill process is addressing the concerns of people whose homes and businesses are impacted by the route. The petitioners seek resolution of their issues and certainty about what will happen. By giving the Bill a Second Reading and allowing the Select Committee to do its work, we can enable petitioners to be heard and their concerns considered.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House when the report of the review will be published?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but perhaps I may pick up all the issues surrounding the review later. If he includes that question in his speech, I will cover it in my speech at the end of the debate, when we discuss all those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister on her enthusiasm about this project. It is good to get that positivity at the beginning of this debate and it is good to see this project gradually creeping, inch by inch, northwards out of the south-east and London. But, my goodness, the Government and other stakeholders make this argument difficult for us at a time when the forecast is for an increase in cost of between £26 billion and £33 billion and for the timetable to extend by five to seven years. In fact, I think it is now 10 years since the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, announced this project, if I have got this right.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

Nine.

[Lord Teverson]

Nine years. If we are talking about it being completed by potentially getting up to Leeds and Manchester only, not even to Scotland, then that is going to take some three decades—the sort of time between the end of the Second World War and 1975—which puts it in a timeframe of my lifetime. That seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous.

Another difficulty is our track record. For HS1, it took 16 years from the announcement to get the line built, 14 of which were after the Eurotunnel had been completed, whereas France, strangely enough, had managed to organise it so that the railway line was open at the same time as the tunnel—something which we completely failed at in this country.

But, like the Minister, I remain optimistic. Looking internationally, in Europe—to mention a few countries—Germany, France, Spain and Italy have these networks in place. In fact, France started in 1981 with its TGV infrastructure and now has some 2,500 kilometres of track. China, of course, manages to do these things even quicker, for reasons we understand: there is not quite the level of consultation that we have in this country. It now has some 30,000 kilometres of track. I understand that the line from Beijing to Shanghai—over 1,300 kilometres—was completed in 39 months from announcement to operation. I was tempted to recommend in my speech that we open the work up again and that the Department for Transport gets some Chinese contractors to bid for it, but perhaps that might not be the way to do this. The fact is that we are a long way behind in this country. We are talking about something, although now, nine years later, it is about whether we stop or start again. We need to move this project forward.

Why do we need to do that? For me, an up-to-date, fast train infrastructure is just a part of the tools of a modern economy. I do not see how we can get away from that. Yes, we should have started some three decades ago, but we now need to proceed. It is important from an environmental point of view. There are important issues around environmental corridors and ancient woodlands that I in no way minimise, but I believe this is one of the ways that we need to tackle a clean transport strategy for the future, not just for a decarbonised rail system but for cars and automotive emissions in particular. I hope that at some point, when this railway goes north of the border, we will be able to substitute rail travel for air travel. Those are just some reasons why we need to do it.

I know that some people have said that this is an old technology. I have heard that from people in the environmental area whom I truly respect, but these lines are still being built abroad at some pace. It is still part of a new technology. Rail, which started almost 200 years ago, is still an important infrastructure. This is not an old technology. Videoconferencing will not substitute the way forward. I also believe that what the Minister said about capacity is particularly important not just for passengers but for freeing up lines for freight services.

I will take just one other area. I think the Minister said—and other contributors from the Labour Benches in particular have said this—that this railway must be open to all. My experience, not just from HS1, is that not just business customers use these lines. Yes, there are some commuters as well, but it is very much ordinary citizens who use them. HS1, particularly for south-eastern services, has been a vital way for local or semi-regional services to rejuvenate part of the south-east in particular coastal towns and communities. This is important for all these reasons.

The question I really want to put to the Minister is about value for money. During research for this project, I tried to look at the comparative cost per kilometre for other high-speed trains and tracks in other nations, particularly in Europe—clearly, it is far lower in China because of the geography and the lack of consultation there. Even in France, it is estimated that the cost of one of their recent lines was one-sixth per kilometre of what it is in the UK. I can understand why it could be even 50% more, but to be multiples more I do not understand. The fundamental question I ask the Minister, in order to keep the confidence of me, our Benches and the taxpayer is: how can the Government ensure that this project, vital though it is, is delivered at the right cost and at the right time, so that we can keep a modern infrastructure in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her opening speech. As I will point out in a moment, there is a big problem with the conflict between that speech, which was full of enthusiasm, and the setting up of a fundamental review, which could lead to the cancellation of HS2. There is a clear left hand/right hand problem in the handling of this project at the moment, which will only serve to add to costs and delays. None the less, the noble Baroness’s speech was excellent and set out the whole case against having a fundamental review of HS2. My noble friend Lord Berkeley who, to my amazement, has agreed to serve on this extraordinary review, is not in his place this afternoon. However, I will recommend that he reads that speech and ceases his work forthwith. I also note the presence in the Chamber of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, who chaired the hybrid Bill committee on the London to Birmingham Bill. With the scale of the work required and the dedication of its members, that was one of the most heroic endeavours which any noble Lord has undertaken in recent times. It showed this House at its very best. I am looking around the Chamber to see who will be volunteering for the next hybrid Bill committee. My noble friend Lord Snape is nodding; maybe he will chair that committee. We would certainly welcome that.

The noble Lord’s work played a very significant part in taking this big infrastructure project forward, as did the work of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, when I became Secretary of State for Transport and devoted myself in a serious way to looking at the case for high-speed rail. He and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to France, but of course it is 55 years, more than half a century, since the Japanese opened their first and transformational high-speed line between Tokyo and Osaka. They started construction 60 years ago, so we have been taking some to catch up, but it was the noble Lord’s strategic review which put it in my mind that I should be looking very seriously at the case for a high-speed rail network in this country. This is a very good example—and we do not have many, I fear, in this terrible Brexit crisis—of constructive public policy which is factually based, learns from evidence and learns from international experience. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson said, almost all the rest of the industrialised world, apart from the United States, has high-speed rail, and even the US is halfway through constructing a line from San Francisco to LA.

The noble Lord mentioned China. China has more high-speed rail than the rest of the world put together and has been building a network at great speed. When I was Transport Secretary the Chinese Transport Minister offered to build our high-speed line. He said to me over a very long dinner in the Transport Ministry in Beijing that he would build it for half the cost of the Germans—I assume that he assumed we were about to give a contract to the Germans. I said, “We have this thing called Parliament, Minister, and it has to agree to all this before we can start the construction, but by all means let us have a conversation in a few years’ time”. I regret to tell your Lordships that that Minister is now in jail under a suspended sentence of death for corruption, so although the Chinese are able to construct these projects quickly, there are downsides in the way they conduct their affairs in Beijing. I am glad that I am with your Lordships and not currently at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

The background to this is a great sense of urgency, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, to see that our infrastructure matches that of other industrialised nations, all of which, apart from the United States, have been investing in high-speed rail to link their major conurbations. When the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, said that this has been conducted without parliamentary consent and scrutiny, that is, of course, palpably untrue. There have been exhaustive debates. The work of the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, and that of the Select Committee in the other place was absolutely exhaustive.

[Lord Framlingham]

I am not sure that I said it had been conducted without parliamentary consent, did I?

[Lord Adonis]

The noble Lord said scrutiny.

[Lord Framlingham]

It is important to be accurate, with great respect to the noble Lord. He said that I said it had been done without parliamentary consent.

[Lord Adonis]

I did not. I said, “without proper parliamentary scrutiny”. There has been massive parliamentary scrutiny of this project. The Motion the noble Lord referred to, which he moved at Third Reading in January 2017, attracted 25 votes while there were 385 votes on the other side, so I do not think anyone can say that it is not the express will of Parliament that is leading HS2 to proceed.

The problem we have at the moment is, as I say, a left hand/right hand problem. On one hand, Parliament has given emphatic consent to this project to continue, and indeed to be authorised in the first place: not just the first phase, which passed this House by 385 votes to 25, and passed the House of Commons by 399 votes to 42—absolutely colossal majorities—but this Bill, extending HS2 from Birmingham to Crewe, was passed in the House of Commons in the middle of July by 263 votes to 17. There has been cross-party consensus and overwhelming support.

The Minister referred, and I assume that her officials were giving her very carefully crafted drafting in this respect, to the work taking place on HS2 as “preparatory work”. There is nothing preparatory about the work being done on HS2 at the moment. The line is being built; more than £5 billion has been spent and more than 1,000 people work at HS2 Ltd in Birmingham. If your Lordships go to Euston, you will see that it is not preparatory work that is leading to the virtual closure of the station, with huge tarpaulins up and big excavation works, but the construction of the railway line. It is right that this should happen, because, unless we start constructing it, it will never be there.

Parliament authorised this project to proceed two years ago. Billions of pounds have been spent, thousands of people are working on it—we expect this work to proceed. It is this that makes the review that has been set up so bizarre. At the same time as Parliament has given express and overwhelming authority for this work to proceed, thousands of people being employed and billions of pounds having been spent, what do the Government do, courtesy of the Prime Minister? They parachute in a fundamental review which is essentially conducting open-heart surgery on a moving patient, if I may mix my metaphors.

This whole project is being constructed, massive public expense is being entered into, and what do the Government do? They announce a strategic fundamental review, looking not just at the management of the project, which is absolutely appropriate to look at because it has not been good enough and is part of the reason we have the cost overruns, but the whole case for HS2, which has been approved by Parliament by majorities of more than 10 to one.

I see the clock is flashing, but I will carry on for a few more minutes because this is Second Reading.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, stuck to seven minutes.

[Lord Adonis]

There is not a fixed time limit. I will make two more points if I may.

When the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, said that the case for HS2 when it started was on speed and not capacity, that was completely untrue. I published the White Paper on HS2 in March 2010, the opening words of which were,

“the Government’s assessment is … That over the next 20 to 30 years the UK will require a step-change in transport capacity between its largest and most productive conurbations … alongside such … capacity, there are real benefits for the economy and for passengers from”—

[Lord Framlingham]

Will the noble Lord give way, since he is determined to take up the time of the House that nobody else, I am sure, will take up? Does he understand that the title of this project is “High Speed Rail”?

[Lord Adonis]

It is a high-speed line, but from the beginning the prime case for HS2 has been additional capacity. I was reading the opening words of the White Paper, which continue,

“alongside such additional capacity, there are real benefits for the economy and for passengers from improving journey times and hence the connectivity of the UK”.

My final point is about the network effects which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to. HS2 will be a crucial part of a new and upgraded national transport network. It will link into Crossrail in London through its junction at Old Oak Common; it will link in with three airports—Heathrow, which is close to Old Oak Common, Birmingham Airport, through Birmingham International, and Manchester Airport; it will link in with HS3 going east-west; it will free up huge capacity for freight and metropolitan commuter services into all of those three major conurbations.

The right thing for this House to do is give emphatic support to this Bill today. We cannot keep pulling up by the roots big infrastructure projects when they are being half-built. If we do it with this one, no one will ever believe that we will do something as big as this as a country again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bradshaw]

I am aware of the advisory speaking time. It was imposed on us by the Government’s edict.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, regardless of what the noble Lord has said, I think that it is quite unacceptable that speeches on a matter of such importance should be restricted in this way when in fact the House is under no time constraint whatever, except one artificially imposed by the Government.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

The advisory speaking time is in deference to colleagues because we have a number of other issues to discuss later on this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I start by saying that I agree with pretty well everything that everybody—except for one noble Lord—has said so far; I will try not to repeat those things. I say gently before beginning that I have looked in the Companion and I cannot find anything at all about the ability of the Government to impose arbitrary time limits on speeches beyond the normal time limits for Second Reading debates. If we are to do this in future, it is something that should be discussed.

It is nearly 10 years since all this started, and where are we? I am tempted to say that we have got as far as digging up cemeteries. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said that there is rather more work than that going on, but it is taking an inordinate amount of time. The proposed route for phase 2a, which we are discussing today, was first published four years ago. I compare this not with China—as a place where things can be done without asking people what they think—but with France. I go to the Pyrenees most summers and I watched the construction of the line from Tours to Bordeaux, extending the existing TGV line, which seemed to be done in a small number of years. I have travelled on it twice in the last two years; I have to say that not only does the line seem okay but so does the new TGV, which I travelled on, there and back, two or three weeks ago.

Last Friday, going home I travelled on one of the new Azuma trains from Kings Cross to Leeds. In comparison—from the point of view of the ride, the acoustics and, of course, the infamous seats—I felt that I had gone back 40 years. Then I reminded myself that the Azumas were ordered and specified by the Government themselves, which I think says something.

All we get are reviews and promises of delays. I am reminded that the Victorians effectively built the mainline network in England in less than a quarter of a century. We seem to take a very long time indeed to do these things. A lot of the opposition to HS2 is about the competence, efficiency and effectiveness of the people doing it: the Government, HS2 Ltd and everybody else. We must distinguish between the need for the line—the project itself—and the need to improve the way these things are done. People attacking the way that it is being done—alleged efficiency, overspends or whatever—is not an argument against building the line; it is an argument to say that we need to do things better in this country.

The proposal that we are talking about today—extending to Crewe—is a relatively small part of what I hope will, in the future, become a substantial network connecting the main regional centres of the country. We need to start thinking about it in those terms. It is not a question of a line from Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds to London, with all this London-centric thinking. We should be thinking about a network that connects all the major cities in the area.

As far as extending it to Crewe is concerned, it would be a very good thing for people in Lancashire and the north-west, as well as, I would hope, people in Scotland. It would allow trains from the new HS2 line to run further north, just like the train I caught to Lourdes the other day—I have to say I was going there for the mountains and not for other purposes. That train slowed down after Bordeaux and became a normal fast express. Then, when it got past Dax, it slowed down a lot. The advantage is that people can do a lot of the journey at high speed and then continue to other places. When the new line to Crewe opens, as I hope it will, it should be the basis of Scottish services as well, not just services to the north-west.

[Lord Adonis]

It is integral to the plan that there will be through services to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

[Lord Greaves]

Absolutely—but these things need to keep being said, because people who are not served by the particular line concerned say all the time, “It’s no use to us”. People in the north-east are saying that—quite wrongly, because the proposal, especially when we get to phase 2b and so on, is to run services through to the north-east.

I live in Colne in Lancashire, at the end of the worst branch line in the north of England, and I am acutely aware that when the Prime Minister comes to the north and promises a fantastic new HS3—or HS15—or a northern power something or other, over the short distance between Manchester and Leeds, it is no use to us. There may well be merit in building a new high-speed line across the Pennines between Leeds and Manchester, but it is not the top priority for people in the north of England.

What people in the north of England want is an efficient network on the existing lines between their cities and towns. The geography of the north of England consists of a series of scattered towns and cities that need a network connecting them all, not just one line between one big city and another, which might perhaps stop at Bradford but nowhere else in between.

What we in the north of England urgently need as a priority is upgrading existing trans-Pennine routes, reopening Colne to Skipton to allow a new freight line as well as local services, reopening Woodhead to provide Sheffield and Manchester with a good service that way, and electrification of the substantial network. That is what we should be spending money on, not a short vanity project—it would not exist in the short term anyway; it would take 20 years—between Manchester and Leeds. The Bill, however, has my total support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I suspect that we are not going to wholly agree on this matter, but if I can do anything at all to bring us closer together, I shall be pleased to do so. I believe that earlier the noble Baroness mentioned Whitmore Wood, which I have also had the pleasure of seeing. The Select Committee in the other place did consider whether the project should tunnel under the woodland, but it decided that that did not represent value for money. An assurance was given to reduce the impact on the ancient woodland by 0.5 of a hectare. However, the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House may look at this issue again.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, can the noble Baroness answer the question put to her on precisely when the review will be published?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I cannot do that with great precision. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned that the original length of the review was six weeks. We should take that period in the context of a couple of months or a month. It is not six weeks on the dot, from day one to the end, although it may well be. The point is that the panel has had to be set up and appointed and the terms of reference were published on 21 August. Given that, I will stick to the autumn of 2019. As noble Lords will be aware, it is a bit chilly outside now, so autumn is coming. However, I probably cannot go much further than that. As I say, the review will be published shortly or in due course. No doubt noble Lords will soon ask me about this again in Oral Questions. However, it is under way and it is a short review.

I want to cover briefly the issue of tenant compensation, which I realise is important to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. There will certainly be an opportunity to discuss it further before we reach the next stage of the process. Due to the route of the proposed scheme, phase 2a affects mostly rural residents, many of whom are tenants of their properties or land. Most types of tenants who will be impacted by the scheme are already provided for under existing compensation law, but where they are not, the Government are able to use their flexible non-statutory arrangements to provide support. That is probably not sufficient detail for the noble Lord, and I agree that we will take the issue further forward.

I want to comment briefly on a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about British Steel. I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, but none the less the Crown Commercial Service steel procurement policy requires bidders to outline their steel supply plans and will award all steel contracts through open competition.

Maritime Transport Access to Trade and Cabotage (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Adonis]

Leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Regulations because they were not subject to public consultation”.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis is not being moved because he is not here. He asked me to say that he unavoidably could not be in the House between 6.30 pm and 8 pm and therefore anticipated that he would not be able to move his amendment, as has proved to be the case.

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

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She cited the fact that there would be no formal consultation on this SI, as indeed on any other SI that has come before the House. Did she note that paragraph 10.1 also said that,

“the intention is to ensure that, as far as possible, the status quo is maintained”?

The noble Baroness has done a very good job in the last 10 minutes of explaining why the status quo is not being maintained in key respects. There is a contradiction in paragraph 10.1 regarding the justification the Government have given for not consulting. According to that justification, they should have made no changes at all but continued with the existing type-approval regime. Given that the Government have made those changes, and given the statement that they themselves made in paragraph 10.1, there should surely have been consultation.

[Baroness Randerson]

I agree with the noble Lord that there should be consultation, because the Government themselves have admitted that there are aspects that could be misleading. That is what they say in the EM.

It is my understanding that gaining EU type approval is pretty expensive. It would be useful to know at least approximately how much it costs, so we can get some view of what the Government will have to undertake in future.

I turn now to the SI on emissions. These EU regulations establish mandatory fleet average CO₂ emissions targets for all cars and vans in the EU, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. They establish targets by which manufacturers must abide, based on a formula, and levy fines for non-compliance. EU states record and report new EU vehicle registrations to the EEA, which leads to the publication of emissions performance for individual manufacturers. Are we going to carry on with this system on a UK basis? Powers are being moved to the Secretary of State, but will the system of publication of performance continue? It is really important for public confidence. Small manufacturers can apply for derogations. In the SI, small manufacturers are defined as producing 300,000 cars and 22,000 vans. Are the Government going to divide that by 28 or something, to redefine a small manufacturer, or will the definition of a small manufacturer across the whole of the EU apply within the UK, in which context it will hardly be small?

--- Later in debate ---

Once again, the Government do not think that there will be a significant impact on business—although on this occasion there does at least appear to have been some sort of consultation. It is a very complex SI, involving a large number of regulations and so on, and my concern is that the Secretary of State has to have an incentive to publish figures, to improve and to encourage manufacturers to improve.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for doing an excellent, forensic job of exposing the issues in this statutory instrument. These entirely substantiate her point about the failure to consult, given the potentially far-reaching nature of the changes. Her last, broader point about the impact of Brexit on the motor industry is, of course, extremely well made.

If we were not in the midst of a very deep Brexit crisis, Parliament and the Government would be overwhelmed at the moment by the controversy and issues raised by the closure of the Swindon plant by Honda. This, together with Nissan’s decision to massively scale back production in Sunderland, amounts to a wholesale disinvestment by Japanese companies now taking place in this country. Indeed, one can join up the dots with Hitachi, a company I know well because I played a big part in persuading it to come here and start manufacturing trains 10 years ago. It has now pulled out of nuclear reactor manufacture at the plant in north Wales because of uncertainty in the decision-making process directly related to Brexit. It is deeply unhappy about what might happen in the European rail market at the moment. I am not absolutely sure that it will be staying in the UK for the long term either. We might be on the verge of seeing the reversal of 30 years of industrial policy in this country, all caused by Brexit, and this unravelling could have a lot further to go if the Brexit process proceeds.

The broader context of Brexit is dire for the motor industry, but the point narrowly focused on these regulations, made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is that we should not be doing anything with the regulatory framework that discourages the import and export of cars. I should have thought that the Minister, for whom I have a high regard, would accept that as a starting principle. I know that she, like me, is unhappy about the whole Brexit process and I am not expecting her to justify it in her reply to this debate: I suspect we would be in a large measure of agreement. If she accepts the starting point that there should be no change to the regulatory environment—certainly none imposed by the United Kingdom, because that would be an act of self-mutilation—can she explain more fully the two paragraphs that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, highlighted? These also struck me as I read them; they are paragraph 7.8 and paragraph 2.4. I have nothing to add to the noble Baroness’s remarks about paragraph 7.8. Like her, I simply do not understand it. If the doubling of the production limits referred to is necessary to ensure the continuation of trading conditions until the end of 2019, why is it not necessary beyond the end of 2019? That seems a straightforward question.

The point about paragraph 2.4 is that I simply do not understand the policy, because it is a policy change. I shall read the paragraph, because there are so many great minds in the House that they might be able to help the House before the noble Baroness replies. It concerns type approvals, a critical issue for the registration of cars, and it reads as follows:

“The UK will no longer accept EU-27 approvals when motor vehicles are registered, other than for motor vehicles that are in the UK prior to Exit day. A process will be established to issue UK approvals for holders of EU-27 approvals. Existing EU approvals issued by the UK’s VCA will remain valid. All of this is an interim arrangement valid for a maximum of two years, pending a comprehensive review and re-working of the UK’s type approval arrangements (with legislation planned for mid-2019)”.


As I read that, the implications seemed profound and I have some questions about it. If the aim is to have continuity, the obvious question is: why make any change at all? A golden rule in my experience of government, though it is being repudiated by the present Government all the time, is, “Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change”. Indeed, I always thought that was a cardinal Tory rule—it is Edmund Burke. So if the aim is to maintain the status quo, which is surely in the interest of the United Kingdom because we have such a large car manufacturing hub, why make any changes at all? Why not simply say that the United Kingdom will accept EU 27 type approvals hereafter?

Secondly, unless I have misunderstood it, paragraph 2.4 seems to envisage a kind of zombie land for vehicles. It says that the UK will no longer accept EU 27 type approvals for vehicles that are in the UK, registered after exit day—that is my understanding—and a process will be established to decide what the regime will be after two years, which stands to reason because it would take two years to decide what that process is. Therefore, it is my understanding that that could lead to retrospective action because there will still be vehicles coming into the UK with those type approvals in that two-year period. However, it says that the UK will no longer accept those approvals, other than for motor vehicles that are in the UK prior to exit. If the United Kingdom chooses to change the rules, it might create a category of vehicles that have perfectly legally received type approval after exit day but which the Government retrospectively decide no longer meet the approvals. On my reading of paragraph 2.4, that must be a possibility. If that is not the case, why does it not say that the UK will accept EU 27 approvals until the new regime comes into force, which will be after the comprehensive review? Is the Minister following my point? I do not understand what looks to be a zombie period between the completion of the review and exit day.

Thirdly, why is the planned legislation necessary unless the United Kingdom is planning to set up a wholly new and separate type-approval regime? Surely, the only reason for setting up such a regime is that we envisage that our type-approval regime and standards might be different—potentially radically different—from those on the continent.

This leads to my fourth question, which is the big industrial policy question underlying all this: if we diverge from the EU 27 type-approval regime, as appears to be envisaged by paragraph 2.4, will that not, in itself, create a significant impediment to trade? Is that not profoundly against the interests of the United Kingdom, given that we are a massive exporter of cars to the European Union? It may be that all this is redundant because the devastation that Brexit causes to our car industry—just to extrapolate from the events of the last month—is so great that we no longer export large numbers of cars to the EU. It may be that by destroying this great industry we do not have the problem of continuing to mimic EU 27 type approvals.

However, many of us in the House hope that we will continue to have a car manufacturing base in this country after Brexit. Surely, it is in our interests that we do not erect new barriers to trade in cars and that we maintain the status quo as far as possible. In which case, paragraph 2.4 appears to act contrary to that policy, unless the noble Baroness can reassure me in her reply that my concerns are entirely misconceived.

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, appreciate the explanations given by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about her anxiety about a number of key features of this statutory instrument. I am commenting on the second of the two documents rather than the first one, although the first has a number of significant question marks. I thank the noble Baroness for her thoughts on those matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said in agreeing with the noble Baroness, a number of questions need to be answered comprehensively today by the Minister.

However, it is not just that but, once again, the anxiety we all feel about the huge accumulation of SIs going through inadequately, badly considered, all in a rush, in not enough time to be considered properly. It comes back to the much more fundamental issue that one always needs to remember in this whole business, of the flaws in the original referendum and the failure to prepare properly immediately after the result for all the things that are now flowing through in the last minute—literally the last few weeks—in the painful process of the disintegration of this country’s membership of the EU. This is now causing more anxiety and concern among many members of the public as they wake up to these realities, not having been given any guidance by the Government immediately after the result. It is not a matter of disrespecting the result of that vote. We know that it was flawed for various reasons. The construction of the referendum was wrong. British citizens who had lived in other European countries for more than 15 years were excluded automatically, so were the youngest voters, who should be entitled to be on the register for future occasions. There were many other mistakes as well. It was really the fault of the Government immediately afterwards—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be briefer than I had intended, mainly because most of the points I wanted to raise have already been made. I am afraid there will inevitably be some degree of repetition.

As the Explanatory Memorandum says in relation to the first SI:

“EU law requires manufacturers of road vehicles and engines for non-road mobile machinery to be type approved before production can begin”.


It goes on to say:

“The proposed changes are designed to ensure that the type approval regime is effective after EU withdrawal”.


We then come on—and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, already referred to this—to the reason for the proposed changes. It says:

“If these changes are not made the legislation will not be operable after EU withdrawal because the UK would be required to continue to accept motor vehicles entering the UK market which have a type approval granted by one of the EU 27 approval authorities, and would have no formal way to challenge the validity of the approval”.


I think the question has already been asked but I will ask it again: how many challenges have there been so far under the existing arrangements if this is now being put forward, as it almost seems to be the sole major reason for making the changes we are now discussing?

I had also intended to read out paragraph 2.4, but I will not as my noble friend Lord Adonis has already done so. It makes reference to the interim arrangement that will be introduced, which is valid,

“for a maximum of two years, pending a comprehensive review and re-working of the UK’s type approval arrangements (with legislation planned for mid-2019)”.

I put it to the Minister that if we are talking about introducing an interim arrangement for a maximum of two years, with uncertainty as to what will happen after two years, does that not create quite a lot of uncertainty for the motor industry going forward? This SI may or may not clear up uncertainty for a short period of time, but it certainly does not do so over a much longer period of time. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

As I say, the Explanatory Memorandum makes reference to the interim arrangement, under which there will be a need for,

“manufacturers holding an EU approval from an EU-27 approval authority … and producing motor vehicles on or after Exit day … to apply for a Provisional UK type approval from the VCA in order to be able to register their motor vehicles in Great Britain or Northern Ireland”.

How quick is this process for applying for a provisional UK type approval? After all, we are getting pretty close to 29 March, so how many of these motor vehicle manufacturers have already applied for one; how many applications are we expecting; is there loads of paperwork to fill in; is it a formality; and on what basis would an application be accepted or rejected? Presumably, that in itself might create a further degree of uncertainty for the motor industry in this country.

My noble friend Lord Adonis has already raised the issue of consultation and read out the bit from paragraph 10.1 that says:

“No formal consultation has been undertaken, as the intention is to ensure that, as far as possible, the status quo is maintained”.


I share his view that that is not a very good reason for not holding a consultation. Surely the consultation, or at least one key part of it, would be on whether what is in front of us achieves the objective of maintaining the status quo, since maybe some of the manufacturers or others involved in the industry might think that it does not. But since no formal consultation has taken place, presumably they were not invited on a formal basis to offer their views on that particular, rather key issue.

[Lord Adonis]

Is there not a more fundamental point, which is that the regulation emphatically does not maintain the status quo? On the contrary, it envisages a completely new type-approval regime being set up. How can the Government say that they are not consulting because that maintains the status quo when the regulation itself emphatically does not maintain the status quo?

[Lord Rosser]

That is the point I was trying to make—that in fact, if the Government had held a consultation, they might have had people coming back and saying that it was not maintaining the status quo, but the Government did not give them a chance to say that because they did not hold the consultation in the first place. Paragraph 10.2 seeks to get round that by referring to the fact that there were,

“a series of focused meetings”—

I do not think anyone would expect a series of unfocused meetings to take place—

“with stakeholders such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders … the Motor Cycle Industry Association … the Agricultural Engineers Association … and the European Engine Manufacturers Association … Numerous smaller trade associations have also been provided with information, and a number of manufacturers have been contacted directly”.

Were they contacted directly on whether what is in front of us in fact maintains the status quo? That is what the Government are saying their objective is, so did they speak to manufacturers about whether they thought this maintains the status quo? As we have already heard in some detail, quite a case can be made for saying that this certainly does not maintain the status quo, which is what Government have said is their objective.

In addition, bearing in mind that the Explanatory Memorandum talks about focused meetings, I know that the Secretary of State is not exactly a fan of trade unions, but I notice that when the Explanatory Memorandum refers to who the focused meetings have been held with, it does not seem to include the trade unions involved in the motor industry. Is this simply a reflection of the Secretary of State’s view that the people who work in the industry, as opposed to the people who own and manage the industry, have nothing whatever to contribute as far as the future is concerned? It would be helpful if we could have a reply on that. I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised that, bearing in mind the content of some of the other SIs that we will go on to deal with, there seems to be a similar silence there on whether those who work in the industry and the organisations that represent them have been consulted.

I will not go through the issue that has been raised with regard to paragraph 7.8 and mention that all again, because clearly the Minister will reply to that. I just want to check that what we have in front of us will meet, at least for a period of time, one of the issues that has been drawn to my attention. A motor manufacturer in this country says that it has a long run-in time of some months for production of the particular vehicle it makes. If it does not have type approval, it cannot complete the car—the type approval for the vehicle concerned, which is manufactured in this country, is done from its headquarters in another European country. It indicates that that could potentially lead to hundreds of almost-finished models of that car being stuck in the plant in this country. I am told that the company is creating extra parking spaces near the plant—which is certainly a waste of money but perhaps quite sensible for this reason we are talking about today, as well as because of potential customs delays, which one might argue is a separate issue. Can the Minister at least say that, provided that the manufacturer can get one of these provisional licences or approvals, what we have here would meet that potential difficulty for a major manufacturer in this country that needs a long run-in time for production of the particular vehicle it produces, and can she confirm that its headquarters where the type approval is done, which are in another European country, would not be in any difficulties as a result of anything in this statutory instrument? If in the short term that would not be the case, because the manufacturer will have no difficulty in getting the provisional certificate or arrangement, what will happen to it in two years’ time, bearing in mind that the Government are not able to tell us what the situation will be then, and does this SI not mean uncertainty for it, at least after two years, if not earlier?

I will ask one or two questions on the other SI, on vehicle emissions, to check what some of the wording means. I am looking at the Explanatory Memorandum, and I am sure the Minister will know why I am referring to it—basically, I cannot make head nor tail of what the statutory instrument itself says. There is a reference in paragraph 2.7 to a summary of the changes being made to the current legislation, and then it sets them out. It says:

“Minor amendments to restate retained EU legislation in a clearer and more accessible way, such as omitting time-limited obligations”—


which one might think was not quite the same as expressing something in a clearer and more accessible way. Could the Minister outline the time-limited obligations that are being omitted? What is the significance of their omission?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of the draft regulations. The regulations will ensure that we can continue to control the registration of vehicles in the UK and also to combat climate change in the transport sector after we leave the European Union. I shall now respond to some of the points raised.

The issue of type approval and the standards that apply was raised by many noble Lords. Future changes to the standards that apply to vehicles approved and registered in the UK will be laid before Parliament for approval in the form of statutory instruments. At the point when we leave the EU, all existing standards, including those for safety and environmental performance, will continue to be applied to new vehicles registered in the UK. There will not be a drop in standards or a resultant effect on road safety or environmental performance when we leave the EU.

As for future decisions on remaining aligned with EU standards, it will be for the Government to propose legislation for Parliament’s consideration, and the process by which the legislation will be considered will be an SI, subject to the affirmative procedure, establishing a new full UK approval scheme. As discussed, that will be laid later this year. I reassure noble Lords that, as has been highlighted, the SI will create an interim arrangement, which will be valid for a maximum of two years. The department is undertaking a comprehensive review and reworking the UK’s type-approval arrangements in the case of a no-deal outcome, in order to ensure continuity for manufacturers. This absolutely is about maintaining the status quo. That is why we are having the interim measure for two years.

The review is not intended to make policy changes. We would remain aligned with existing standards, but we would amend the retained EU legislation on type approval, which runs to 3,700 pages, to eliminate remaining deficiencies and, if possible, to streamline the legislation to make it more accessible. There will, of course, be a formal consultation on that process, to ensure that we get it right. This is an interim measure for two years, maintaining the status quo pending a large piece of work with a formal consultation to ensure that, should we leave with no deal, we would have the best possible functioning type-approval system.

[Lord Adonis]

But what is the point? Why not simply continue to maintain EU 27 approvals? If we do not intend to diverge, what is the point of this big piece of work?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

Before, it was for the whole of the EU. Now it will be for the UK only, so this is a temporary measure until the new type-approval statutory instrument comes in.

[Lord Adonis]

The Minister referred to a statutory instrument, but the regulation refers to legislation. What is the relationship between the legislation, which is scheduled for mid-2019, so will be introduced very shortly, and the statutory instrument to which she referred?

Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

The Government justify this change by saying that if we maintain the visiting victims scheme and the MIB compensation system, we will end up paying out money to EU victims visiting the UK without any reciprocity. That is a very good reason for taking no deal off the table and continuing the current system. Many years ago, the cumbersome system that the Government now envisage was the norm, but more than 2.5 million of us drive abroad each year. That is equivalent to the whole population of Northern Ireland—men, women and children—getting up and taking their cars off on holiday at the same moment.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is making a very powerful point in respect of compensation for accidents, but there is also a massive bureaucratic issue in respect of insurance here. It is understated in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 3.7 says:

“If there is no deal with the EU, UK motorists will also be required to carry a ‘Green Card’ which guarantees third-party insurance provision when driving in the EU. This may result in increased bureaucracy and costs for those drivers”.


That must be the understatement of the year: how can that not result in a massive increase in bureaucracy and inconvenience to drivers? Should the Government not be telling all the motorists proposing to leave the country in five weeks’ time that they are going to be required to have this green-card, third-party insurance provision which they do not have at the moment, and how they can secure it? I am a former Secretary of State for Transport, but I myself do not know what it is, so the population of Northern Ireland which, as the noble Baroness says, will be decamping over the next 12 months to the European Union, is going to have to be well informed about the green-card insurance system, about which it knows absolutely nothing at the moment.

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord makes a powerful point and I will come on to the green card later. It did strike me, as I read the Explanatory Memorandum, that it was a masterpiece of understatement. It said some fairly amazing things without the slightest hint of a raised eyebrow.

The point I am making is that the Government’s proposal is totally inappropriate to modern life. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments points out that paragraph 3.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the method of claiming will vary from country to country and that victims might have to pursue an uninsured person directly.

It also points out that no deal will lead to the issuing of green cards again. I am sure that noble Lords will remember green cards—but not with affection. The DfT has acknowledged that this will also apply to travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Although it says that the SI has nothing to do with green cards, perhaps the Minister can update us on the situation with green cards, because the British Insurance Brokers’ Association is alerting us now to the urgency for a decision, because physical green cards will have to be produced in their millions in the next few weeks.

I sometimes think that Brexit is a giant conspiracy against the great British tradition of a holiday in the sun.

[Lord Adonis]

I did not pick up on this in my reading of the statutory instrument. Did I hear the noble Baroness correctly: that you will require a green card to cross the Irish border? Is that the point she was making? Is that not a breach of the Good Friday agreement?

[Baroness Randerson]

I am quoting the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The noble Lord makes an interesting point. It quite possibly would be but I am not sufficiently expert on the Good Friday agreement to be definitive on that.

There is a conspiracy against our summer holidays. We will now be going off with an international driving permit, sometimes two, and a green card to wait in the queue at the Channel Tunnel or the port—unless we choose to go by air, with all the doubts about whether or not the plane will fly. It will cost more because of the changes in the exchange rate in the past two and a half years; the ATOL system will not have the guarantees that it once had; and now we hear that if you have an accident you will be left to fight for compensation on your own. What will we get in return? A shiny blue passport. The problem is that this takes us back to a cumbersome, bureaucratic system that goes back decades and does not fit the modern way of travel.

On the consultation outcome, paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Given the EU Exit negotiation sensitivity of changes to the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003, formal public consultation was not considered appropriate”.


I have read that several times. Are the Government really saying that because this will upset motorists they are not going to tell them about it or consult them? That is how I read that sentence. If that is not accurate, will the Minister explain exactly what the Government were trying to say?

The paragraph goes on, almost incredibly, to say that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, the insurance trade associations and the motoring trade associations have been consulted and are satisfied. Are they seriously satisfied with this? They cannot possibly be satisfied and I would like to know what they really think. They might take the opportunity after they have read Hansard to tell us. It cannot be possible in an industry as diverse as this that all those organisations are happy with these seriously problematic regulations.

Paragraph 12 refers to the impact. Astonishingly, it deals with the impact on the courts of an expected spike in the number of cases being pursued prior to Brexit to take advantage of the current system. It totally ignores the impact on private individuals who are victims and find that they have to go to another country to pursue their case. Justice is a right, not a privilege, and these regulations cut at the basis of that right. UK citizens injured abroad may effectively lose the right to compensation as a result of this. Indeed, it is likely that compensation will be available only to privileged, wealthy people who can afford expensive legal representation.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, it is important that the House does not lose its capacity to be shocked by the scale of the dislocation that may be imposed by the Government on the country in one month’s time if no deal Brexit proceeds.

In a succession of speeches, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has laid out the impact of no deal on motor industry regulation and she did a good job of weaving together the changes in relation to insurance, accidents and international driving licences. The extraordinary thing about it is that, because we are going back to pre-1973 law, not only are many bureaucratic requirements being imposed but they are being imposed in a way that is entirely pre-digital.

Noble Lords will recall the green card but I am still of an age where I do not recall it—I do not think the Minister recalls the green card—which is a telling remark. You have to be—how can I put this delicately?—of a certain age to remember the green card. I certainly do not remember the international driving licence. However, as we go into this Alice in Wonderland world of disaster that the Government propose to inflict on the country, we now know that not only will you require an international driving licence and a green card but you will have to have them as physical constructs because the regulations under which they are imposed go back to the pre-digital era. You will have to get a physical international driver’s licence or licences—the Minister can intervene on me at any stage if she wishes—and a physical green card. Is that correct?

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I am old enough to remember the green card, which you had to produce when crossing a border. When you went through what were independent countries, at each border you had to produce a green card, which was a document in your hand. Has the noble Lord any solution to the problem of what we must do if we are to satisfy the authorities abroad that we are covered by third-party insurance? That is what the green card is all about. It is a document to show that you have third-party insurance. It should go on your policy anyway. It is a document that shows that what is in your policy is transferrable and understood by the countries you want to visit.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, my submission is that we should not be engaging in a no-deal Brexit in the first place.

Let us be clear about the obligations that the Government are now imposing on the country: it is entirely within the Government’s power to rescind the notice under Article 50 so that we do not crash out in four weeks’ time. If the Government cannot persuade Parliament to agree to arrangements in the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement that do not involve the country descending into Dante’s circles of hell in four weeks’ time by leaving with no deal, the Government’s duty would be to ensure that we do not leave with no deal. There are two ways of doing this: they could rescind the notice under Article 50 or they could have agreed at any point in the last six months to apply for an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period, which Parliament may impose on them next week.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We have all sat here very patiently. In the politest way that I can say it, the noble Lord is testing the House’s good will if he is not testing the Companion itself. I read pages 50, 51 and 52 before I came into the Chamber, anticipating this kind of filibustering. It is counterproductive to alienate the mood of the House in such a way. Straying from the Companion to the extent that the noble Lord has is testing the House’s good will. Will the noble Lord reconsider?

[Lord Adonis]

I completely refute the noble Lord’s remarks. My remarks have been relevant to the statutory instruments before the House. I have said nothing that is not. That was clearly a pre-prepared set of remarks that the noble Lord was intent on making. I think this is well below the standard that one would expect of a Member of this House in addressing another. If the noble Lord wishes to defend the Government’s policy, he should make a speech doing so, rather than attacking those who are doing their duty in this House by scrutinising it.

The noble Baroness set out the concerns about green cards and has done previously about international driving licences. Her point revealed that separate international licences are required for different countries in the EU because of the different rules. Regarding the green cards, my noble friend Lord Rosser has pointed out to me paragraph 3.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says that the DfT estimates that,

“between two to four million individuals may need a Green Card”.

In response to the noble Lord who intervened, we have a duty to speak up for those 2 to 4 million people who will be put through a big, new bureaucratic process as a result of this one statutory instrument. It goes on to say:

“Green Cards are obtained free of charge from insurance providers; however, the DfT has explained that ‘insurance providers can decide to reflect production and handling costs in a small increase to their administration fees’”.


This is another point that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made about the impact assessment: the Government say in paragraph 3.10 that they expect that insurance providers may pass costs associated with the requirement to hold these green cards on to motorists. This surely justifies an impact assessment to judge what those costs will be. The Government also ought to set out what they think is an acceptable level of costs.

I know exactly what will happen and the House can immediately envisage the circumstances. Those costs will pass through and may be quite substantial in many cases, because the insurance providers will claim that there has been a sudden change that they cannot quantify and they want to make proper provision for it. As always in these cases, there will then be a significant public controversy. When that happens, questions will be asked in this House and in the House of Commons about the acceptable level of costs that can be passed through. What does the Minister think would be an acceptable level of administration fees for insurance providers to pass on to motorists if they require green cards?

The point about Northern Ireland is not small but substantial. I see a noble Lord from Northern Ireland in the Chamber. If all motorists in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland who cross the border will be expected to carry a green card, because all those drivers will frequently cross borders, unlike drivers in Great Britain, this cost and requirement will effectively be imposed on a very substantial proportion of citizens and on all citizens in the border areas.

That is a straight cost that will be imposed on them and a big bureaucratic burden. Do the Government not think that, if they are imposing a cost that is pretty much a badge of citizenship on individuals—

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

I am sorry to intervene again on the noble Lord’s interesting speech. That cost is not the product of this instrument at all but of travelling into a country with which we no longer have the relationship that we have at the moment. Their laws will impose on us the requirement to carry the green card and prove that we have the necessary insurance if we enter their territory. I do not think it follows from the instrument. I may be wrong, but I would be interested if the noble Lord could point me to a paragraph in the instrument itself, rather than the memorandum, which has that effect. I would be very surprised if it did.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I am guided by the Explanatory Memorandum, which has highlighted this as an impact of these new arrangements.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

The noble Lord is obviously pointing out for our information that this is the effect of the problem we are facing, which I think he is suggesting we ought to know about. My point is that it is not the effect of the instrument. If he is asking for a statement on the effect of the instrument in the documents that follow, that is not the right question to ask.

[Lord Adonis]

I now understand the noble and learned Lord’s point, which is to distinguish between the precise provisions of the instrument and the regime that will apply around the matters covered by the instrument when we leave the EU without a deal. That distinction will not pass muster with the 2 to 4 million citizens a year who will be required to have green cards, or with pretty much the entire population of the border territories of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, who will have these obligations imposed.

My final question for the Minister is a serious one. If there is a requirement to have a green card, and therefore new insurance documentation, for all citizens in Ireland’s border territory, what legal advice does she have on how that can be reconciled with the Good Friday agreement to have no further border controls or impediments between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland?

The issues raised by the statutory instrument are profound and need to be properly debated in this House. I for one do not intend to be silenced by Conservative Peers who would much rather these issues were swept under the carpet.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to raise one or two questions. I will try to direct my questions to what is in the statutory instrument—although I share the view of my noble friend Lord Adonis that, if the Explanatory Memorandum to this statutory instrument makes a reference to something, it is perfectly appropriate to discuss it in this debate.

My first question to the Minister concerns something that is mentioned in the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which ends by saying that the committee recommended that this instrument be upgraded to the affirmative resolution procedure when it was previously presented as a proposed negative. Bearing in mind the fairly dramatic impact that this instrument will have, why did the Department for Transport think that the instrument was appropriate for a negative resolution procedure rather than an affirmative one?

I will try to make fairly specific questions and points. The first relates to the paragraph on consultation outcome that has already been mentioned. I will pursue a little bit further the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about this extraordinary statement. I will repeat it:

“Given the EU Exit negotiation sensitivity of changes to the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003, formal public consultation was not considered appropriate”.


Can we have a proper explanation of why, and sensitivity to whom? What about the changes is so sensitive that the decision was made not to hold a formal public consultation? It goes on to say:

“Nevertheless, informal engagement has taken place with the MIB, the Financial Conduct Authority, insurance trade associations and motoring trade associations to inform our drafting and ensure key stakeholders are aware and satisfied with the changes being proposed”.


Does the reference to motoring trade associations cover, for example, the RAC and the AA? If it does, then clearly I know where I stand on that. If it does not, were the RAC and the AA consulted? Bearing in mind the impact on insurance, was the Consumers’ Association consulted? It might have had a view on the impact of this statutory instrument on the consumers of insurance policies, which will be fairly dramatic. It would be helpful if the Minister, on behalf of the Government, were able to give a response.

I want to follow up another point, already raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the cost of having to pursue claims in EU countries, which is another fairly dramatic change associated with this instrument. What is the Government’s estimate of the cost for individuals of having to do this? The instrument remains pretty silent on what that impact will be. Indeed, as has already been said, the instrument is very much geared towards the impact on the insurance industry and the MIB, and the potential costs involved; it says precious little about the impact on affected motorists. Surely the Government would want to protect the interests of the motorists and not leave them in a worse situation, if at all possible. If the Government felt this was not possible, they might at least produce a document setting out fairly what the additional costs are likely to be for motorists in having to pursue claims in EU countries, as opposed to the current procedures.

Paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum also makes a reference which, presumably, reflects when the statutory instrument was first drafted. It says:

“We should anticipate more UK residents issuing legal proceedings from November 2018 to exit day in order to ensure their claim can continue to be made in the UK”.


Bearing in mind that we are now more than half way through February 2019, is the Minister able to update us on whether more UK residents have issued legal proceedings since November 2018, as was anticipated at the time that this instrument was first drafted?

Later in the text, paragraph 14.1 says:

“The approach to monitoring of this legislation is that a Post-Implementation Review is not required”.


In view of everything that has already been said this evening about the impact on individual motorists vis-à-vis their insurance, it would seem that if one piece of legislation required a post-implementation review after going through, it is this one. There is no real information in the Government’s document about what they think the impact will be on individual motorists; there is speculation, but not much solid information, so surely this ought to be subject to post-implementation review. Once again, I would be grateful if the Minister could give a response on behalf of the Government.

As others have said, considerable surprise will be expressed about what this particular impact of a no-deal Brexit could mean. My final comment is that at some stage, presumably, the Government will want to advise people of the impact that a no-deal Brexit would have on motor insurance. Perhaps they intend to do it by putting an advert on the side of a bus and running it around the country to tell people about some of the downsides of Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

I agree with the noble Baroness that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that people are aware of this. A communications campaign was launched in February, which has notified citizens about how the changes to claims can be pursued. It advises that in the event of a no-deal exit, UK residents involved in a road accident while abroad would need to bring their claim in the country concerned. That campaign is live, with radio, digital and social media. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, heard an advert on Spotify, as he mentioned in a previous debate. We are also directing stakeholders to an external site where they can download and share information with their clients; we will continue to do that.

This is an area where we continue to pursue agreements with other EU countries: we are pursuing bilateral agreements and the MIB is having those conversations with its EU equivalents. The nature of the conversations is sensitive, involving the reciprocal payments of insurance claims; that is why the specific detail has not been published. As I say, we acknowledge that this is not an ideal outcome for citizens. It is a sensible alternative, after weighing up the options, but achieving a deal remains our greatest priority.

The impact assessment lays out the five options that we considered, including a “do nothing” policy, but in each there would be a direct cost to victims of traffic accidents. People are still able to make claims, but they will have to do that in another country. I am not able to give a specific cost. The noble Baroness is correct to point out that this equates to 5,000 motorists a year. The additional costs incurred by a victim would depend on a number of factors and the complexity of the case.

On green cards, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, quite rightly quoted the comments from the SLSC report, which were put in the new Explanatory Memorandum. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was quite right to point out that this SI does not equate to green cards, but I am happy to address it briefly. The Government want to remain part of the green card free-circulation area. We meet all the requirements needed to remain part of it when we leave the EU. That has not yet been agreed by the Commission; we very much hope that it agrees that soon. They can be obtained from insurers, free of charge. The noble Lord is quite right to point out that that could mean 2 million to 4 million green cards. We are working very closely with insurance companies to ensure that people are informed of this. My noble friend Lady Barran, our new Whip, received such a contact from the insurance industry very recently. However, this is something that we want to avoid and that is why we are very hopeful that the Commission will agree that the UK can remain part of the green card free-circulation area. Again, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out, this is not in our gift. We match the requirements that are needed, but need the EU to recognise that.

I think I have answered all the questions raised.

[Lord Adonis]

Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Sugg]

On Northern Ireland and specifically the Good Friday agreement, which I think the noble Lord pointed to, the Commission and the UK have said that they will respect the Good Friday agreement, and currently—the noble Lord is right to point out—there would be a requirement to carry a green card. However, the implementing decision from the Commission to recognise the UK as part of a green card circulation area would remove the need for that green card. As I said previously, we meet all the requirements of that, and are working with the Commission to make that agreement.

I think I have answered all the questions; if I have not I will follow up in writing. I will end as I started: I recognise that this is not an ideal situation; it is not one that we want to be in. We think this is the right decision, given the implications of leaving the motor insurance directive—something that will happen if we leave the European Union without a deal—and that is why the Government are working to ensure that we achieve a deal with the European Union. I beg to move.