Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

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

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I am not going to get involved in a debate about which of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, or my noble friend Lord Whitty was the better Transport Minister or Roads Minister: I think they were both good.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I was only a government spokesman. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was a policy-determining Minister; I was not.

[Lord Berkeley]

Well, maybe that will change someday.

To speak briefly to Amendment 4, I think the noble Baroness has tried hard to interpret the long debate we had in Committee about the method of allocation and we will have to see how it goes: I think we cannot go much further on it. However, I support my noble friend Lord Whitty’s Amendment 5 on these criteria, which Unite has quite rightly been proposing for the operators. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned, though, it is going to get even more unfair if foreign lorries coming here do not have to comply with the same criteria. We risk losing more traffic to foreign lorries: it is massively out of balance at the moment and will get worse. I am not sure how we do it, because the Minister said about a previous part of the Bill that we cannot legislate about anything to do with foreign lorries coming here. I hope she will reflect on the need not only to take into account my noble friend’s amendment but how to apply that to lorries that come to this country so that there is a fair balance.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I too welcome the movement that the Minister has shown in the redrafting of Amendment 4. The essence seems to me that there will be a series of criteria to determine who should get permits and that the use, particularly, of random selection will emerge only where the differentiation by the criteria shows candidates to be equal. In other words, the objective will be to have objective criteria that can do the differentiation process, and only when bids of equal merit are placed in front of the selection would we stoop, sadly, to random selection. Let us hope we never get there—let us hope that there are enough permits anyway.

The Minister met many of the aspirations of Amendment 5 and I hope she will repeat them in her summing up. I hope she will give some warmth to repute as a concept for selection. There is the idea of a single criterion—safe, environmentally okay, et cetera—but it is crucial to recognise that it is more complex than that. We need to look at an operator’s track record: do they consistently work to a high standard? Are they consistently a good representative of that industry?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

6: Clause 2, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) In negotiating arrangements for permits with the European Union or European Union member States, the Secretary of State must seek reciprocity in terms of the quantity of permits and the fees charged.”

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 6 I will speak also to Amendment 8. This is to do with the quantity of permits and the fees, which we have already discussed in relation to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Amendment 6 seeks to put in the Bill a proposal that when the Government are negotiating the number of permits, either with the European Union or each member state individually—if that is the way it is to be done, because clearly we do not know which way it will go—there should be reciprocity in terms of the number of permits and the fees charged. I would like to see this objective in the Bill.

I am sure the Minister will want to do this for the sake of the UK haulage industry, but it is something which sometimes gets forgotten and it is very important if we are to have a modern, thriving haulage sector here, both in terms of the quality, which we have discussed, and the fees charged. One would hope that the fees would be reasonable in comparison with the fees charged by many other member states. I include some of the newer member states in eastern Europe, where the fees may be very low, and that is one of the reasons that we get so many trucks from eastern Europe here because it is a lot cheaper for them to operate. I hope the Minister will take all that into account. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

Can the Minister confirm whether the cost of the permits that she mentioned will include just the operation of the system or will there be a requirement for hauliers to fund the setting up of some IT system that might, or might not, last several years or go wrong or anything else? I hope her answer will be that it is just the operation.

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord has read my mind. I was about to come to the fact that I can confirm today that these fees will cover only the day-to-day running costs. The Government will cover the set-up costs of the scheme, which is being funded by part of the £75.8 million we have received from the Treasury as part of our planning for exiting the EU. I hope noble Lords and the haulage industry are reassured by that. I fully agree with noble Lords that we want the greatest possible access for road hauliers, coupled with the lowest possible costs to hauliers, but we do not believe that we should be asking the taxpayer to pay indefinitely for permits.

Before I turn to the specific amendments, it may be helpful to set out some detail on current fees. Fees are already charged in relation to some of our permit agreements with non-EU countries. They are reasonably consistent. For example, there is an £8 fee for a single-journey permit to any country with which we have a permit agreement, such as Ukraine. In our agreement with Morocco, we charge £50 for a 15-trip permit. The ECMT permit—referred to in the regulations as an ECMT licence—which allows unlimited journeys for a year, costs £133. All those fees have been set on a cost-recovery basis and give a good indication.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised reciprocity. First, on the number of permits, many international agreements, such as our agreements with Ukraine and Belarus, are permit-based and agreed under the principles of reciprocity. In circumstances where the agreed number of permits is used up, additional permits can be provided. We do that on a reciprocal basis because no country wants to limit the amount of haulage carried out. Under a future permits scheme, we would absolutely seek reciprocity in the number of permits so that neither side is limited and we are confident that that can be achieved. In the first group, we discussed amendments relating to negotiation objectives being in the Bill, and the Government remain of the view that they should not be included in the Bill.

Secondly, on fees, the arrangements for issuing and charging for permits are handled at a national level and the UK has no agreements with other countries that address the cost of their permits. We are not aware of any international road haulage as said, but? arrangements that has such an agreement. We set our own fees for UK hauliers and other countries set their own fees, including for permits for travel to the UK. To give some examples, in Ireland there is a separate fee for Community licences that we do not have. The Netherlands charges fees for both applying for and issuing ECMT permits, whereas we currently charge only for the issue of a licence. Other countries’ fees can be higher or lower than the fees charged in the UK, depending what the fees choose to cover.

Looking at equivalent charges in other countries, I mentioned the single-journey permit. The equivalent permit in the Netherlands costs around £4, slightly less than in the UK, but in Finland it costs £35, which is more than in the UK. In Norway there is no charge for permits, but it charges around £98 to issue a Community licence. While we charge £133 for an annual ECMT permit, it costs around £219 in Serbia, and in the Netherlands there is a fee of around £302 for applying and a further fee of around £121 for issuing the permit. I am afraid I have no details of some of the new EU members which the noble Lord mentioned. It is proving quite difficult to get hold of the details, but we will get them and consider them when setting fees.

If we have permits and seek an agreement on fees, other countries may wish to charge more. I think the examples I have given show that there is quite a lot of disparity between the charges. We do not want to seek reciprocity on fees because it could be unnecessarily complicated and it has never been done before, which may delay our reaching an agreement. As noble Lords are aware, we are keen to get an agreement in place as quickly as possible.

If we end up with a permit scheme, we may have to introduce fees, and we expect that other countries would do the same. They could be higher or lower than the fee charged in the UK depending on what the fees cover. While we will look at the international comparisons, the best we can do is to make sure the costs are as low as possible for hauliers.

As to exactly what the fees will amount to, I regret that I am not able to provide exact figures because that will depend on the negotiations and the cost of administering any permit scheme as required. However, I repeat my assurances that if permits are needed, we want to keep the fees as low as possible—in the region of the existing permit fees that I have referred to.

Noble Lords are right to highlight the impact of these fees on the haulage industry. We intend to have one set of regulations and permits that will include fees, and I am pleased that the later government amendment on affirmative regulations means that noble Lords will have the opportunity to discuss those fees. Prior to the fee being set, we will of course consult fully with industry, including small and medium-sized businesses. I absolutely acknowledge the noble Baroness’s point that it has more effect on them than it does on the bigger hauliers. That is something that we will consider. The government amendment on consultation that we will come to later will make that consultation a statutory requirement.

I sympathise with the aims of the amendments but I hope noble Lords will agree that the costs are best met by charging fees for permits on a cost-recovery basis. If the permits are needed, the Government are committed to covering the set-up costs of the scheme and will do all we can to keep those day-to-day running costs as low as possible. The fees, if needed, will be discussed carefully in the consultation and will be subject to further scrutiny from noble Lords should our later amendment on the affirmative resolution be accepted. However, I confirm that we aim to keep the costs as low as possible. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. I had understood from our debates in Committee that there might have been one opportunity for us to negotiate the amount of charges with the EU as a whole. That is clearly not the case and the examples that she has given indicate that my amendment is not a good idea at all, which I now accept. All I can say before withdrawing it is that her department will have to negotiate with not just 26 member states but quite a few other countries around the outside. I hope she has enough staff with the right expertise to do that so that we do not have the cliff edge we were talking about earlier. However, I am very grateful for the information that she has given us, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, in Committee, a number of noble Lords brought forward amendments to require the Government to analyse and report on the impacts on the efficiency of the UK haulage industry of any permit scheme that might be introduced, and to report on the Government’s intentions, expectations and achievements with regard to future arrangements with the EU. While we have been clear that we are seeking continued liberalised access to the EU, I recognise the concern about any impact of a limited scheme on the haulage industry. I gave an undertaking to the Committee that we would publish details of any permit scheme as soon as they were available. I also undertook to consider how best to review the impacts of any permit scheme, should one be required.

The new clause proposed by the Government requires the Secretary of State to lay an annual report assessing the effects of any restrictions on the haulage industry. We already issue permits to UK hauliers to travel to some non-EU countries where we have agreements that require permits. This amendment would be triggered only where the UK has struck an agreement with at least one country that is a member of the EU that requires a permit scheme, and where there is a limit on the number of permits available for hauliers travelling to EU member states.

The amendment also sets out the length of the reporting interval. If an assessment of the effect of a permit scheme is to be of value to Parliament and to the industry, sufficient time must pass to enable the effect to be assessed and evidence to be gathered to inform that assessment. Setting the timing of the obligation to report for the first time as one year on from any regulations coming into force will ensure that the actual effect of the regulations is properly assessed. The Government believe that the amendment they have laid imposes a proportionate obligation to assess and report, while addressing the concerns that were raised in Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment, as far as it goes. Again, we debated this in Committee. The noble Baroness has tabled the amendment after Clause 8 and explained very clearly its purpose. However, when I read it, I said to myself, “What are ‘relevant restrictions’?” It is not included in the definitions and, although she has explained it, in the cool light of day when the Bill becomes an Act, I would read it and say, “Whatever is that?” Could she look again at that and either clarify it or come back with a definition at some stage?

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 12, I will speak also to Amendments 13 and 14 in my name. In the real world, you have to realise when you are not going to get any further. The noble Baroness has, in effect, accepted the thrust of our concern that there should be proper reporting. I think our amendments are much better but I know that she will not agree with me, and so I will settle for what I have got.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I have realised to my horror that I have not repeated the declaration of interest that I made at the earlier proceedings: I own or operate two very large trailers, one of which weighs 27,000 kilograms and the other 17,000 kilograms empty.

I am very concerned about light trailer safety, about which I spoke at greater length in Committee. I had discussions on the matter with my noble friend the Minister in private and was able to go a lot further than I went in public in frightening her a bit—I hope. It is a remaining weakness in our road safety regime and the condition of our vehicles, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, alluded to. It is not necessary to have a universal light trailer registration scheme to achieve testing of trailers, but the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke about theft of trailers. She is absolutely on the money: this is a big problem. I suspect that it would be alleviated by general registration of trailers, because, to sell a stolen trailer, one needs an identity. Due to changes made to the write-off provisions for cars, for instance, it is much more difficult to acquire an identity of a written-off vehicle—for reasons with which I shall not bore the House. There may therefore be an argument for registering small trailers for reasons of deterring theft, but it would not be necessary if one wanted a testing regime.

I mentioned that I have had a private discussion with my noble friend the Minister. I have also secured a meeting, planned for 2 May, with my honourable friend the Minister for Transport, Jesse Norman. Other noble Lords are welcome to join me for this meeting: I think a meeting with the Minister, with the benefit of having the officials in front of us, where we can put these points and look at this in detail, has much to commend it in the short term. I think we would have a greater chance of convincing the Minister that we need to make some changes by that procedure than by agreeing an amendment to the Bill now that we know perfectly well will be overturned in the House of Commons. That will still not get us the objective we desire, whereas I suggest that at a meeting with the Minister, with officials, we will be able to drill down and ask rather more searching questions. I can be rather more frightening to the Minister on the issue in private than I can be in public.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this amendment, but I was really rather surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, say that he was in favour of registering trailers against the risk of theft. I rather got the impression that he was not concerned about safety: after all, cars have MOT tests largely to ensure that they operate safely. Given the examples that my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and the noble Baroness have given of things that have gone wrong with trailers, with some pretty disastrous results, it seems to me there is a very strong argument for having registration to cover safety as well. Whether that covers the same things as the MOT, we can debate, but it seems important. Not all trailers weigh 27 tonnes—I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on being able to pull 27 tonnes with something that goes down the road legally—but I think there is a very strong argument from a road safety point of view for having a registration scheme.

[Earl Attlee]

I think it was really good that we had the benefit of a pep talk from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who is on the Woolsack as we speak, because I can correct the noble Lord on a material point: my point was that it is not essential to have a registration scheme if you want to have a testing scheme, even for light freight. Even now we have a testing scheme for HGV trailers but we do not have a registration scheme. It does not mean that I do not think it is important; it is just that it is not necessary to have a registration scheme.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

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

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support all the amendments in the group, and am grateful for the kind words said about me by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton and our debate last night.

The noble Baroness may be right that there are many things wrong with this Bill, but it is a great deal better than nothing. It affects only drivers’ permits and trailers. Last night in the discussion on Amendment 104, we discussed many other issues relating to cross-channel and cross-frontier freight and all the customs issues that went with them. As I think I said last night, it would be good if we had had a separate Bill for that so that we might have gone into the detail, but here we are. We had a very good Second Reading debate. My worry, which is contained in Amendment 7 in my name, is that when we discussed at Second Reading Clause 2, which is to do with the number and allocation of permits, it seemed to become quite confusing. One noble Lord—I cannot remember who—warned against the “random selection” in Clause 2(2) because it was greatly open to abuse. Perhaps that should be removed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, regarding Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I do not think we should tie the hands of government. If we set something in stone in primary legislation, it will be to our disadvantage and our opponents’ advantage. However, I very much hope that the negotiations will result in the absolute minimum of friction, for the reasons so well explained by all noble Lords who have spoken so far. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, observed that there are no draft regulations in sight and that this is a framework Bill. That is not surprising, because we do not know what the negotiated agreement will look like. However, the Committee will be aware that if the Bill is passed, it will strengthen the Government’s negotiating hand.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raises an important point in his Amendment 7. I would like to see no restrictions on permits—more or less free issue—with one exception, which I am sure he will agree with. Is there any scope for denying permits to non-compliant operators if they are in trouble with the traffic commissioners or the Vehicle Inspectorate? I do not expect an answer from my noble friend the Minister this afternoon but perhaps she could write to me in due course. As I say, I am for no quantity restrictions but I do not think we should put this into the Bill because it would tie the hands of Ministers when they are negotiating Brexit.

[Lord Berkeley]

I understand the noble Earl’s comment in suggesting that Amendment 7 may not be a good thing to put into the Bill. But he will remember that when this was debated at Second Reading, there was much discussion of the allocation of permits. Does he not agree that there needs to be some wording to ensure that the allocation, if it has to happen—I share his views that it should not and that there should be enough for everyone—should be seen to be fair? Perhaps he has some other ideas to replace my proposed new clause in Amendment 7.

[Earl Attlee]

I assure the Committee that I will not be tabling amendments but I was alarmed by some of the history of permits that we looked at during Second Reading. That is something I do not want to see because it constrains the market and competition. I would much rather see permits issued more or less freely, with that one exception: that we could see it as an opportunity to make things more difficult for non-compliant operators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

I understand the noble Lord’s point. Sadly, I cannot speak for what will happen in the EU until we have concluded the negotiations. Within the UK, that is absolutely the idea: there would be a system to check on these permits. The noble Lord makes a very good point: we will seek to minimise corruption in future, but that will be subject to negotiations.

[Lord Berkeley]

On the issue of fraud, I have come across people involved in the delivery of trucks. There appears to be a way you can avoid being limited in your hours by the tachograph because it does not stay with the person, it stays with the truck. That has probably been the case for 20 or 30 years. What have we learned from that and how will we prevent the same thing happening in future with these licences that my noble friend has spoken about?

[Baroness Sugg]

Absolutely. I agree with the noble Lord that that has happened in the past. We are working with the DVSA on how to better enforce compliance, on both this and future licensing systems, and we will continue to do so.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned the tripartite agreement between the UK, France and Ireland. We have been looking at how best to ensure that the racing industry is not affected by this Bill and is protected. However, I will take away what he said and will look at it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

2: Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2

[Lord Berkeley]

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

[Baroness Randerson]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

The clause as drafted ensures that there has to be a direct agreement between the UK Government and the Government of Ireland before any such scheme is introduced. It aims to avoid exactly that.

[Lord Berkeley]

Does not the question of requiring the Government of Ireland to consent to the use of permits apply to the whole European Union? In other words, are we allowed to use these permits unless the EU accepts them as a valid document? Does that not apply equally to the rest of the EU, not just Ireland?

[Baroness Sugg]

The permits would need to be recognised by the EU to be used. As I said, this is an extra clause to ensure that we can also have a separate agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom before anything is put in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

I am sorry about this but on the permits from within Ireland that means a company based in Dublin, for example, would require a UK government permit to travel through the UK to go to the rest of Europe and beyond. Have we consulted with the Irish Government on that issue? It seems an important consultation to undertake. What if they are not happy for us to have a permit scheme which will apply to companies based in Ireland? I do not know how many of those there are; possibly not that many, although I am sure there are a sufficient number to be a burden on their businesses. Have they actively considered that?

[Lord Berkeley]

Before the Minister responds, I will widen the question a little. My noble friend mentioned the example of a lorry starting in Dublin and going through the UK to the continent, and asked whether it needs a permit. That is why I tabled Amendment 14B, which we shall come on to in due course, to ask whether foreign trucks need a permit to enter the UK. Surely it does not make any difference whether it is delivering from Dublin to the UK or going through the UK to deliver to Paris, as it still needs the same licence. Is my assumption correct?

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord is correct. We will move on to discuss cabotage, which is an incredibly important issue, whether it be for Republic of Ireland hauliers or UK hauliers. We continue to work with industry to understand its needs. We have spoken to those within the island of Ireland and to a certain extent those in the EU about the Bill. As I said, the exact arrangement on cabotage will be subject to negotiation, so I cannot provide a precise answer at this stage on exactly what that truck from the Republic of Ireland travelling to the UK and on to France will need, because it will depend on the outcome of the negotiations.

As I said, the clause is an attempt to provide clarity on the issue around the island of Ireland. I will take away noble Lords’ comments, consider them carefully and look again at the wording. The reason for this provision is to single out a potential issue and provide reassurance that there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may not agree that it does that, so I will take it away and look at it in detail. But for now, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for some pretty long and detailed explanations. I can see the political need for something like this. On the other hand, when one sees what has been going on in the last six months, where the Irish Government have clearly allowed the European Commission—probably quite rightly—to do all their negotiations for it as just another member state, that gives cause for reflection. I shall reflect with colleagues and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

The reason we put these two methods in the Bill and left other criteria and approaches for the regulations is based on legal advice. Perhaps the Committee would allow me to set it out.

Although there is no specific reference to the exercise of discretion in the Bill, all regulation-making powers and the regulations state that the Secretary of State “may make provision”, which obviously involves the exercise of discretion. Decisions on the allocation of permits will involve an element of discretion in both setting the criteria and applying them to determine which operator gets a permit. Discretion in the Secretary of State’s decision must be in accordance with public law principles, so it must be lawful, rational and procedurally fair, and decisions may be challenged by way of judicial review where they do not comply with those principles.

To be clear that the Secretary of State is able in certain circumstances to allow the use of first come, first served or random allocation, they have been included in the Bill. Where the criteria set out in regulations and guidance are not sufficient to allocate all the permits, the Secretary of State is able to use that discretion to allocate permits on a first come, first served basis. It is best included in the Bill in accordance with public law principles.

I understand the noble Lord’s point. We have had extensive discussion on this. It is based on very clear legal advice that if we were not to include it, we could not use it at any point. Although we do not want to use it for the allocation of permits, because I entirely agree that that would not be fair, I will take it back and discuss it further with the legal team to clarify. I understand why it standing alone in the Bill causes concern.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister. While she is doing that, could she come up with some precedents where the first come, first served principle has been used and, if it is buying tickets for sporting events, or whatever, whether it is appropriate for this?

[Baroness Sugg]

I certainly will. As I said, we currently use it in certain non-EU agreements, but this is obviously the first time we will be partially using it in an EU-UK agreement. Let us not forget that we are all hopeful that we will not need to include it, but if we do, it is incredibly important that we get it right in order that it is fair. I will take it away, discuss it further and see whether we can get across the same principle and ensure that we are not subject to legal challenge in a way that is more acceptable to noble Lords.

[Earl Attlee]

When my noble friend takes it away, can she also have a look at why we do not simply auction the permits? We auction all sorts of things: oil exploration rights, for instance. They are very valuable and they are auctioned. That seems a much more sensible way to allocate a scarce resource rather than first come, first served, which seems to have all sorts of difficulties alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, although he shakes his head vigorously.

[Lord Berkeley]

The noble Earl would prefer to see a lorry load of caviar coming in rather than basic food.

[Earl Attlee]

I made it quite clear that I do not think we should go anywhere close to being short on permits. We are talking about disaster if we are short on permits. As we know perfectly well, the Bill’s provision is just a long-stop measure, but I am glad that my noble friend will be taking it away.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

9: Clause 2, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) Before exit day, the Secretary of State must publish a report outlining the content of any agreement with the EU over the allocation of permits for UK registered vehicles to operate in the EU.(3B) In subsection (3A), “exit day” has the same meaning as in section 14 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 14B in my name.

Amendment 9 is quite simple. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a report saying what is in any agreement that has been made on the allocation of permits for UK-registered vehicles to operate in the EU. I do not need to go into it in any more detail than that. We have had a good discussion about that this afternoon, and I am sure that the Minister will welcome this. She will probably say that she is going to do it anyway, and if she is not going to, she jolly well should. However, there is a reciprocal problem that we have not discussed so far—although my noble friend Lord Snape mentioned it—which is about EU lorries coming into the UK. Amendment 14B would allow the Government to make regulations to issue permits for non-UK registered vehicles to come into the UK. This would include vehicles, as I said earlier, from the Republic of Ireland.

Does the Minister agree that there is a need to issue such licences? I hope that she does, because otherwise, EU lorries will roam around the UK freely, doing exactly what they like, presumably doing cabotage for several months before they run out of fuel. It seems unfair, and I am sure that the European Union negotiators will accept that there has to be a reciprocal arrangement. Does the Minister envisage an allocation of permits to each member state, or will there be one lot of permits to cover the whole 26 or so member states—apart from Ukraine and places like that, because they are not within the EU? If the answer is, “No, it is an EU one and that’s fine”, will the Republic of Ireland to be happy with that, and how will it get its allocation—will it be separate or together?

I can see from past experience that the French and Dutch Governments in particular may want more than their fair share, or more than what we may think is their fair share, so there is the question of how we would deal with that.

Lastly—I hardly dare go back to this question of first come, first served—but how will it be done? I cannot say much more than that, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. I beg to move.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. These amendments have been laid to ensure clarity of purpose in the Government’s strategy. Amendment 12 seeks to get the Government to lay a report within a month of the Bill passing on forecasts of how the permits regime will affect the efficiency of haulage and in every year following. Amendment 13 asks that within three months of the Bill passing the Government produce a report setting out their expectations for future arrangements between the EU and the UK with regard to road haulage. Amendment 14 suggests that within three months of the Bill passing a report on the costs of the future international haulage permit scheme be published.

It is essential to business continuity that the industry knows what the Government are up to and what their expectations are, what forecasts are being made and, most importantly, what costs they are likely to incur should the scheme in the Bill need to be implemented. It is fair to say that the impact assessments published were delphic in the extreme on cost estimating. No figures were given, but there were a lot of words to suggest that there is an expectation that companies in the small and medium-sized haulage sector might seriously struggle with the cost when permits are introduced, particularly given that, on the face of it, it is going to be a full cost recovery system.

The Minister will say that it is too early and that we have not got to the point at which we need to do a lot of this, but at Second Reading she gave some indication of what the range of costs might be for individual permits. We need more information, and there ought to be an obligation on the Government to produce reports setting out forecasts and expectations for future arrangements and costs. Without those things, we will not have certainty in the industry, and the industry definitely needs certainty. From my discussions with the FTA I know that it is concerned not so much about the scheme itself as about how it will work, what the details of implementation will be, the burdens that it will place on its businesses and the likely impact on the haulage industry in the UK generally. These are not unreasonable concerns. We, as responsible legislators, ought to focus on that. I hope that the Government can come up with some answers and will commit to producing reports and assessments of the sort that these amendments describe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, these amendments set out requirements to report on a range of matters related to road haulage, from the allocation of permits to forecasting how a permits regime will affect the efficiency of road haulage, what our future arrangements will be for transporting goods, the cost to the road haulage industry and the permit arrangements for foreign hauliers. As noble Lords have made clear, road haulage is essential to our economy. It is an indispensable enabler of much of the wider economy, too. I appreciate that the Committee’s concerns here are how the permits system may affect the movement of haulage between the United Kingdom and the EU, and any impacts on UK hauliers and the wider economy—the direct financial impacts to industry and the wider economic effect.

The key impact for hauliers alongside the use of permits, as highlighted by many noble Lords, will be any restriction of trade and the possible friction at borders, which is why we are obviously doing what we can to reduce that. I am afraid I cannot give any further information on the wider negotiations currently taking place, and can only repeat that a future partnership is in the interests of both sides.

In implementing this legislation, we will bring forward a straightforward system that minimises any additional burdens or costs for business arising from the scheme. I previously set out that there will be no new transport checks required at borders. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, proposes that we produce a report outlining the content of any agreement on the allocation of permits, if they are required. When our agreement with the EU is settled, we will of course ensure that the haulage industry is properly informed and educated. As he predicted, I can say that we will publish the details of that scheme as soon as it becomes available. I am not convinced of the need to enshrine in the Bill the requirement to lay such reports before Parliament, as the information will be in the public domain.

Within the other amendments, Amendment 12 proposes that one month after the Bill comes into effect, and thereafter on an annual basis,

“the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament containing a forecast of how the permits regime will affect the efficiency of haulage”,

while the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has tabled an amendment about reporting within three months of the Bill coming into effect on the arrangement of the allocation of permits. I will address those together.

Although I cannot provide detailed forecasts of the impacts on the haulage industry while we are in negotiations as we do not know the final deal, as I have said, we are aiming to continue the existing liberalised access we have today. Again as predicted, this time by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I do not believe that a requirement in legislation to produce a report containing analysis of how the permits scheme has impacted haulage is appropriate, or indeed even possible, one month or three months after the Act is passed as suggested, as negotiations may still be concluding.

However, I absolutely agree that it is incredibly important that the impact of any EU permit scheme—if that is required, and we are obviously all keen that it will not be—is assessed at an appropriate stage to take into account the application of the agreement itself, the administration of the scheme and the effect it will have on industry. If we need any new permit scheme, it is unlikely to have gone live within the timescales suggested, and we would not be in a position to provide any evaluation of its impacts. As I have said, we will publish details of the scheme as soon as they are available, but I absolutely recognise that there is a need to review the impacts. I will consider how best to do this ahead of Report and come back to noble Lords on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made a point about information. Where possible, we aim to use existing information provided as part of the operator’s licence, and of course we will consult on all additional information needed and will aim to minimise that. He helpfully highlighted previous requirements, which certainly seem excessive to me. If we can use the negotiations to simplify the information needed on permits, we should certainly do that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, this should be as simple and straightforward as possible.

I turn to the amendments on foreign hauliers. The Bill is not directly concerned with the operation of foreign hauliers in this country, except to the extent that Clauses 10 and 11 allow for derogations from a permitting scheme in emergencies. With the exception of Clauses 10 and 11, the Bill is solely concerned with requirements on UK hauliers operating internationally and provides powers only for the UK Government to issue permits to UK hauliers. But in light of the amendments, and because how EU hauliers are treated in the UK is incredibly important, it is probably helpful to outline the Government’s current thinking on international hauliers operating in the UK.

As noble Lords have pointed out, foreign hauliers play an essential part in freight movements between the UK and the EU. Foreign-registered HGVs carry more than five times as much freight as UK-registered HGVs, hauling 40 million tonnes between Great Britain and the other 27 EU member states. While the UK remains an EU member state, we participate in the Community licence scheme, an EU-wide scheme that permits a haulier licensed in one member state to operate across the Union, including some cross-border and within-border trade in other member states. The arrangements we make with the EU should, of course, be reciprocal. Whether we will require a permit scheme for foreign hauliers, and how it will work, will be subject to negotiations with the EU in the same way as whether UK hauliers will require a permit in the EU.

If future arrangements require permits for UK vehicles to travel to the EU, it follows that EU vehicles would require permits to travel to the UK. If we did require a permit scheme it would be for other member states, rather than the UK, to organise the issuing of their own permits. That would not be something the UK Government did. How they allocate these will be up to them, but we will discuss this with them in detail. I would be interested to hear their thoughts on first come first served and random allocation. That is why the Bill does not address this.

[Lord Berkeley]

I thank the Minister for her explanation. To be clear, if each member state is to be allocating permits, what about the quantity for each state? Will there be more permits in total than we want and will we be able to limit them? How is it going to work? Will the European Commission do it? I think that would be a pretty good disaster, but it is for it to decide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord is quite right. We think it is best to negotiate this as an EU-wide agreement. Bilateral agreements remain an option should we need them, but we very much hope that we do not.

[Lord Berkeley]

Is there a precedent in the negotiations with Ukraine, or another country outside the EU? Does Ukraine negotiate bilaterally with every other member state or with the EU, and are the lorries allowed to roam freely within the EU once they have got in?

[Baroness Sugg]

Our current agreement with Ukraine is negotiated through the EU. I believe that Ukraine has an unlimited number of permits. I will go back and look at specific examples. Most of these negotiations are done with the EU as a bloc, as I say, not bilaterally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

This came up at Second Reading, and we have consulted extensively with the horseracing industry to ensure that it does not affect it. Our understanding is that all-in-one horseboxes—as I will call them again—are used rather than trailers, so they would not be affected by this legislation, but we are working with the industry to ensure that this will not affect it.

The reason why I set out how we deal with this in legislation is to make the point that there is a system there for us to do it through the withdrawal Bill and the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act, which is why we have not addressed it in the Bill, which relates solely to UK hauliers. However, as I say, we are hopeful that we will not need to use it.

[Lord Berkeley]

Before we leave that, I think the Minister is arguing—obviously, I will have to read the record afterwards—that we do not need these amendments because it is already covered by existing legislation. However, I would be interested to know two things. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours talked about the difference between owned goods in a lorry and third-party ones. Is that condition still there, and do we have to take it into account? After the noble Baroness’s intervention earlier, would it be possible to have a total list of all the different permissions that are needed to carry goods out of and into the country? I could put it down as a Written Question, but it is easier to ask it now. It would be quite interesting to have such a list of what permissions one needs. I do not suggest that the Minister answers this now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. I will have to go back and look at that in detail and come back to the Committee in writing.

As was covered earlier when we were discussing the reporting requirements, I agree that we must consider the impacts of leaving the EU on the haulage sector. That should cover both UK and foreign hauliers. We need to come up with a form of reporting on this; I do not believe it needs to be in the Bill, but I will consider that and come back with a proposal ahead of Report. Once again, I welcome the discussion that this amendment has enabled, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister. She has been very patient with the questions from me and other noble Lords. Obviously I shall reflect on what has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, yet again makes an interesting and important point about fuel dipping. It is a burden on the industry. I have to confess that I made a suggestion to do with the problem of foreign trucks coming into the UK with very large tanks of fuel, running around the UK and then leaving with tanks that are practically empty so that the Treasury gets none of the benefit of the fuel. I suggested that every HGV, UK or foreign, should leave the UK with a nearly full tank of fuel, but that suggestion did not find favour because it was thought to be contrary to EU rules. However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raises an important point.

The noble Baroness asked why we should charge. I come back to the point that we simply do not know what the negotiations are going to give us. We again hope for a simple system, but if we end up with a more complex system, naturally there will have to be charges—presumably cost recovery only, as it should not be seen as a profit centre. We need to remember that the cost of running a maximum-weight articulated vehicle is quite considerable—I do not know the current figures—so the cost of a permit in the overall cost of the operation will not be that significant. Whether it is an SME or a large operator, the cost per mile of an HGV is very high.

I have what might be a slightly tricky question for the Minister. We are cost recovering, but are we going to use the UK fees that we raise from our own hauliers to cover the cost of inspecting foreign trucks over here to make sure that they have a permit? If there is a 75%/25% split for contingency—where the 25% is the UK operators—25% of operators will be paying a small amount of money in but spending a lot of money on ensuring the compliance of foreign operators. Some people might have something to say about UK operators paying for the policing of foreign operators.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, the idea is that a lot of foreign trucks are going to be inspected. It does not happen at the moment very much, and if it is going to happen in future, there will have to be a very large increase in the number of inspectors and locations for inspection. The profit margin of most of these operators is very low, so the cost of a permit, which, as the noble Baroness said, may be only £50 to £85, may be quite a lot to some people. I am more concerned that it appears that EU lorries coming into our country will not have to pay anything because they already have a permit from their own country. Are we giving them an £85 advantage just to come here? I assumed that we would be able to charge them to give them a permit, but, as the noble Baroness said earlier, they already have a permit. There is something out of balance here. I do not know what the solution is, but I hope that the Minister can look at this. Perhaps we should have our own permit scheme, or else it should be free for everybody. It does not seem fair at the moment.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, this clause creates fee-charging powers for administering a permit scheme, which, understandably, is a key concern for the UK haulage industry. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the issue in detail.

The regulations under this Bill will apply to all the permit schemes that the UK has. Once we have introduced a robust legal framework for permit schemes it would be both necessary and sensible for the regulations to cover all schemes. They would therefore apply to potential permit arrangements for EU member states, existing and future permit arrangements with non-EU countries, and ECMT permits. This means that fees for permits for different countries can be consistent and consolidated in a single set of regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

If a truck has to be checked statically in a car park somewhere, that will be quite expensive. The DVLA no longer has the system of excise duty licences on cars; that is checked by number plates. Is there a way of adopting a similar system for trucks—even for foreign ones? I know they have different number plates, but it would be much easier and would give a much more comprehensive range of checks.

[Earl Attlee]

What about the HGV levy system and the technology behind it? It uses ANPR to enforce it, so I should have thought that it would work automatically.

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord and my noble friend make important points. Of course, we want to use IT systems whenever we can both to minimise the burden for hauliers and for Government to check on these things. The permit system may not be allocated to a specific truck; it could be allocated to a haulage company. That may be difficult, but we are exploring it. The current system is that the DVSA outside the port will pull over a truck and check it on the side of the road. That is one of the options that we are exploring. If there is a way to do it that is less expensive and more efficient, we will certainly do that.

[Lord Berkeley]

That is very interesting. I thought the permit would be allocated to a truck. If it is not, there seems to be more potential for fraud—by photocopying, for a start.

[Baroness Sugg]

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

Renewable Transport Fuels and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations 2018

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

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

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 1 and speak to Amendment 3, which is grouped with it. Amendment 1 would replace “on a journey” with “moving or ready to move”. At Second Reading and in Committee, the definition of “on a journey” was the topic of extensive discussion and I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne, Lord Balfe and Lord Rosser, who contributed to those discussions and made such helpful suggestions.

Our intention in the Bill has always been to capture when a vehicle is in motion and also when it is stationary but about to travel, as there is still a safety risk if the person in control were to be dazzled or distracted at this stage. This includes journeys of any length and journeys that begin and end in the same place, such as training flights. It also includes taxiing in the case of aircraft, as well as temporary stops, such as at a train stations, bus stops, traffic lights or when waiting to take off. To clarify this, the Government have laid the amendment to remove the references to “journey” and refer instead to when a vehicle is “moving or ready to move”. This wording is wider than “journey” and removes the ambiguity of what actually constitutes a “journey”.

To strengthen this further we have, in Amendment 3, defined that when a mechanically propelled vehicle’s engine or motor is running, it should be treated as being ready to move. It is important that we include all safety-critical points, for example when an aircraft is at a stand, as this could have safety implications for persons on the ground in the immediate vicinity. The amendment does not change the policy intention of the Bill but does provide greater clarity, which I hope noble Lords will welcome. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness and the Government have made some good changes to the Bill, but I have one or two questions, which I am sure she will be able to answer. They relate to the definition of a “vehicle”. The word “vehicle” appears in Clause 1(1)(a)—“on a journey”, as the noble Baroness said—and subsection (2). She is then introducing—on page 2, line 9, through Amendment 3—“a mechanically propelled vehicle”, which seems to substitute the wording of subsection (6), which includes an,

“aircraft, motor vehicle, pedal cycle, train, vessel, hovercraft or submarine”.

I am glad she has got rid of some of those because that could be quite difficult.

However, she goes on to say in the interpretation—I know it is not in this group but I might as well mention it now—that Clause 7 defines an aircraft, but a “vehicle” also includes an aircraft. Presumably you can get done both ways, in either Clause 1 or Clause 2 or something. Perhaps she could explain whether these definitions include trains or bicycles, I just wonder whether a little bit of tidying up might be a good idea before the Bill reaches the statute book.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, noble Lords may recall that I moved some amendments to this important Bill, which of course has my full support. One of them dealt with the phrase “on a journey”. As is evident from the amendment, and others in the noble Baroness’s name, possible weaknesses in the original wording—that is, a risk of loopholes in the intended coverage of the Bill—have all now been addressed. I support the amendment and I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s receptive consideration of the points made in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

The noble Lord has my support in wanting to push this issue a bit further. I recall raising in Committee the issue that it would be difficult to imagine why people would be walking around carrying a laser and pointing it at either objects on the road or planes in the air unless they were intent on doing some mischief.

It is also possible that people would find it very difficult, as the noble Lord has said, to prove the intent that is in the Government’s proposed legislation. I understand where the Minister is coming from on this—the Government do not want to criminalise people simply for walking around with a laser pen in their pocket—although I go back to the point, which I believe I made at Second Reading, that we have a situation with knives where we all own them and use them on a daily basis but it is an offence to be carrying a knife in certain situations. So we have managed to sort out the law in such a way that it is possible to distinguish between people who happen to have a knife in their rucksack because they were cutting up their apple for lunch and people who are carrying a knife with the intent to use it as a weapon. I say to the Government that it is probably worth while going back and looking again at applying that approach to the carrying of laser pens and lasers in general.

[Lord Berkeley]

My noble friend has made a very good point, as has the noble Baroness. It is a question of what evidence would be needed to secure a conviction for the intention to dazzle. It seems to me that, taking the noble Baroness’s example of having a knife in one’s pocket, evidence that a laser is switched on is not hard to find. Evidence of intent to dazzle is very difficult. I hope that she can give some examples of the type of evidence that would be likely to be accepted in order to secure a conviction. If she cannot do so after she has had time to consider the matter, it may be that my noble friend’s amendment is the right one, and the paragraph should be thereby deleted.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I used to prosecute some years ago. I take the noble Baroness’s example regarding the carrying of knives. There was of course a real scourge of young people carrying knives in the street, but it would have been extremely difficult to secure convictions of people roaming the streets in Glasgow, where I prosecuted, on the basis of what was likely to happen. That is why the safer course was followed of defining knives of a particular size, those exceeding six inches or whatever it was. Anyone who was carrying one was guilty of a crime. There should be some way in which to achieve certainty. One has to remember that north and south of the border the standard of proof in criminal cases is high—proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is that aspect that makes the issue so difficult. If one was dealing with a civil test, the balance of probability, then likelihood would be fine. That comes up from time to time in various other situations, but it is the criminal standard of proof that makes the point important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley]

I very much welcome this approach, and the tidying up of the original interpretations in Clause 1(10). It has sensibly removed references to submarines and pedal cycles, neither of whose operators seem particularly at great risk from a laser beam. It will cover the coachmen of horse-drawn vehicles, which provoked some examples of misinformed or imprecise reporting following the Committee stage. I wish to record that for horse-drawn vehicles, as for all other types of vehicle, the person responsible for controlling the vehicle—in this case, the coachman—is who I had in mind. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her positive consideration in arranging for these improvements to the Bill.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I just want to clarify something I said earlier, because if I do not, the lawyers will start nitpicking at vast expense. Presumably “vehicle” in Amendment 7 includes trains—I think it should. Does it include bicycles, and people on bicycles? The controller of the vehicle is the person at whom the laser may be directed. Then we have things called segways, scooters and single-wheel segways. If they are all vehicles, that is fine by me, but I hope people will not start nitpicking and say, “Well, it’s not this, it’s the other”. I hope the definition is comprehensive.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her amendments. They demonstrate that she has approached this Bill with very much an open mind. Because of the Bill’s technical nature, some experts in the House were able to add some very useful amendments, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, being an example. But it perhaps gives us pause for thought that the Bill, which has been pretty narrowly drafted—fortunately the noble Baroness has tabled amendments to broaden it significantly—still needed quite a lot of amendment. Although this is an issue that the Government have been considering for many months, there were still technical issues that needed to be addressed. That does not suggest that the proposals had been consulted on sufficiently. However, in relation to the Minister’s approach, I am very grateful to her for her assistance.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to the House for allowing me to speak in the gap.

I am interested in the way in which the Conservative Party has done a complete U-turn on this issue over 25 years. When I was building the Channel Tunnel, one of the arrangements Margaret Thatcher was pleased about was that she negotiated cabotage mainly with France because the French haulage industry was not keen to have British trucks going into France and doing cabotage there. In return for building all the trains in France, Mitterand allowed the UK to have cabotage. That was the start of the single market in transport, and here we have the same party trying to close it down today, which I find rather sad.

I saw Barnier and his team last year, as did the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and he gave me the same message: industry must be prepared for a cliff edge and there will not be any cherry picking. Nothing seems to have changed. The Bill is a good start as an attempt to cherry pick but, as many noble Lords have said, what about the continental drivers who are going to come to the UK? About 80% of cross-Channel traffic is now provided by non-UK registered trucks and drivers, and I cannot see much point in setting out what we want unless we can reach agreement with the European Commission as to what happens the other way. Many noble Lords have referred to this.

It is worse with the issues in the Republic of Ireland, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, briefly referred. I have an interesting paper on Brexit produced by the Irish Academy of Engineering, which gives many statistics, including that about 1 million trucks or unit loads cross the frontier from the Republic. Some of them are destined for Northern Ireland while others go straight across the sea. The report states that 95% of the units go to and from Great Britain and two-thirds of the traffic to and from the continent goes through what they call the “land bridge”. It points out that that will involve four customs checks unless the system is changed. I cannot believe that the Irish Taoiseach, Mr Varadkar, whom I have met once and who I think is doing very well in sticking up for the Republic, will be pleased about that.

I understood the Minister to say in her opening remarks that there was no need for registration, whether for trucks or trailers, between the Republic and Northern Ireland. I do not know, but I hope that she will be able to clarify that in her response to the debate. As many other noble Lords have said, I do not see how we can have no checks on registration between the Republic and Northern Ireland and no checks on registration across the sea.

Finally, several noble Lords have put this to the Minister. If we have a system for issuing licences for trailers, trucks or drivers, how long will it take to develop and how much will it cost? She will remember that HMRC was asked a similar question last autumn: what would it cost to handle the customs on trucks? The chief executive said that it would take five years to develop an IT system, he could not say what it would cost and the work cannot start until HMRC knows what has to be done. We are going to have five years of misery on the licensing, assuming the Department of Transport can do as well as HMRC—I do not know whether it can—before something good comes out of it, if it ever does. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

We are working with the existing IT system at DVSA, so there would be no additional contract. I can certainly provide the noble Lord with further details on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the implementation period. Obviously, this is being discussed. The Government have been clear that the implementation period will be based on existing rules and regulations. I hope that we will reach agreement on that soon, which should provide some reassurance to industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked about the recognition of driver qualifications. The treatment of drivers’ certificate of professional competence will—again—depend on the outcome of negotiations with the EU, but our objective is absolutely to ensure that following our exit from the EU, CPCs will continue to be recognised.

The noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Berkeley, asked about access for foreign hauliers, including cabotage. These, again, are important issues for negotiations that we are considering carefully for any future arrangement. In any scenario, there is existing domestic legislation to provide appropriate access for foreign hauliers coming to the UK, so the Bill does not address that specifically. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, it is an important part of the negotiations, and it will obviously be part of the discussions.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and others mentioned ECMT permits. The permitting system operated by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport is an international agreement entirely separate from the EU and will not be part of our negotiations. The ECMT permits currently allocated to the UK are little used and we have absolutely no intention of allowing them after we leave the EU.

As much as I would love to give the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, a timeline for our transport negotiations, I am unable to do so. We are working closely with industry to understand its requirements and priorities, and have been doing so since the result of the referendum. We represent those views to the Department for Exiting the European Union. That department and the Department for Transport stand ready to move forward with the transport negotiations as soon as they begin.

The noble Lord, Lord Snape, spoke about optimism. I agree with him that we do not want to return to rationing. We are optimistic in these negotiations and am pleased that at least my noble friend Lord Attlee shares that optimism. It is absolutely to the mutual benefit of us and the European Union that we maintain liberal access; 84% of the freight transported between the UK and continental Europe is operated by EU hauliers, and it is in both our interests that we have a successful outcome.

[Lord Berkeley]

If this goes ahead and we have licences here for drivers and trucks to operate on the continent, we will presumably need some approval process. Perhaps it would not be a taxing system but it could work alongside the customs declaration for all the 80% of foreign trucks coming into the UK—either into Northern Ireland from the Republic or from the continent. Has that been taken into consideration?

[Baroness Sugg]

Certainly not in the context of the Bill. I apologise for going back to this, but exactly what that will look like is a matter for the discussions with the European Union as part of the negotiations.

The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked about the reservations to the Vienna Convention on Road Transport. We will be making reservations in respect of six sections of the convention, relating to jaywalking, parking direction and so on. They apply only domestically and will not affect the other countries. It is usual practice for countries, on ratifying the convention, to put forward such reservations. We do not expect there to be any issue on that.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, like many noble Lords, I also welcome the Bill as an heroic attempt to deal with the challenges. It certainly has not dealt with them all but it is a good start.

The complexity is well illustrated in the schedule, which to me demonstrates the need for a comprehensive review of all road traffic legislation. I know we will not get that at the moment; it would be a lawyer’s paradise. But the Minister mentioned some work by the Law Commission, which I found interesting. Its work seems a bit delayed. Five years ago, the Law Commission produced an excellent report on making level crossings safer not only for trains but for cars, lorries and so on, and we still have not seen any legislation about that. If there is to be legislation, I hope this Bill does not jump the queue.

The term “automated vehicles” also applies to railways and shipping, where they are happening. We have not yet heard how you would rescue a ship in the middle of the Atlantic if the whole thing fails, but no doubt we will. I think drones are excluded, but the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, talked about air. It all comes back to public acceptance. There is already a trucking experiment—probably more than that—going on in Germany. What are called “platoons”—of three trucks, I think—are driving down what I think is a private motorway. I am told that they have even found a way of having two platoons driving together in adjacent lanes and automatically hitching and unhitching the second or third truck with no driver in it between one and the other. I shall not explain where they could have come from, but they would all be going along at the same pace. How you deal with other people who want to overtake in a car, goodness knows. That is happening, and one of the failures of the Bill is that it does not take into account the road freight sector, where the challenges are probably different. The results may be different, but it is definitely happening. On the whole, a greater number of professional drivers are driving or controlling them than there possibly are in the private car sector.

Clause 1 refers to the listing of automated vehicles and their data. I think many noble Lords will have received a briefing from the Association of British Insurers which sums up the problems of insurance very nicely. For me, the most important thing is for the Government to ensure that users of automated vehicles are able to demonstrate that their vehicle was in a fully automated mode to exercise their rights under the legislation. What commitment can the Minister give us that the data confirming the status of the vehicle at the time of a crash will be made available to insurers and the public? I hope the answer is that it will be, because it is fundamental.

What happens to pedestrians and cyclists on a road where some of the vehicles may be in automatic mode and some may be being driven by one’s stepmother who cannot drive, has never had a licence and has forgotten how to turn a corner? Then there are many examples that we know of, involving people on scooters and things like that.

I worry about the definition of a vehicle driving itself, which the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, mentioned. It may be going along by itself, but it is under the control of somebody. It may be a computer or a human being playing some kind of game of Matchbox cars or something, but somebody is in control. This whole idea of the vehicle driving itself will be a bit of a get-out somehow.

The other issue is that if a vehicle is in an automatic mode, I do not believe it can possibly break the law. If it did, like a lot of motorists and truck drivers do today, it is not just about the weight of the vehicle, its speed and whether it has turned right in the wrong place, because that is all recorded, or it should be. We have to accept that everybody will be watched by Big Brother all time and will not disobey the law; otherwise they will presumably have their password removed and will not be able to control the thing any more.

There is another question related to that. You get power failures and breakdowns of computers. At some stage, these vehicles will break down, for whatever reason, and one has to find a way of rescuing them and making them go again. As many noble Lords will know, if your computer breaks down, someone—whether it is you, the retailer or someone else—has to try to start it again, and that sometimes takes a long time. That is a question that we need to look at.

On charging points, I do not think the needs of the trucking industry have been looked at. There need to be many more such points. In the future, I think most of them will be smart, for the reasons that the Minister and other noble Lords have given. There will be a need to get a quick charge and for your vehicle’s battery to feed back into the grid, if that is thought to be a good idea and it makes money, to get rid of the peaks and troughs.

It is essential that we have one common socket. That may seem a very small point, but many people drive to the continent—we will still go there after Brexit, I am sure—and many continental cars and vehicles will come here. Let us learn from the horrible divergence of power sockets in Europe at the moment. The Swiss have one, most of the rest of the continent has another and we have a different one again. There are very good reasons for that, but let us try to have one common socket everywhere so that they are completely interchangeable. I think we shall need one socket outside everyone’s property, if they still own a car. I am not convinced that everyone will own cars by then; I think they will hire them when they want to travel, which is another challenge. We must have many more smart charging points, taking into account not just heavy goods vehicles and so on but taxis—Uber, black cabs or whatever we like—because otherwise how will they work when the vehicle works 24 hours a day and they want a very quick charge?

I am sure a lot of interesting amendments will come up in Committee and thereafter, but I wish the Bill well. Let us hope we all try to improve it.

Rail Update

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I detect a certain amount of ducking and diving in this very long Statement. I congratulate the Minister on keeping a straight face on some of it. However, the role of Network Rail is not mentioned at all. My understanding from several sources is that Stagecoach’s contract was based on Network Rail undertaking a large number of enhancements on the east coast main line so that Stagecoach could run more trains, and, presumably, get more revenue. This has not happened because, apparently, Network Rail has run out of money. Surely the answer is to give Network Rail the money to do that and not blame Stagecoach for everything that has gone wrong, as I think that most of the blame lies within the department and its own infrastructure manager, Network Rail. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I agree that there is no simple reason why the franchise has failed; there are a number of reasons. The east coast has not performed as expected. It can be attributed to external factors which were not predicted. For example, the decrease in petrol prices resulted in increased competition. On the enhancements, from the start of this franchise to date all the infrastructure upgrades planned for the east coast have been delivered. Further upgrades for the route are planned but were not due to be completed by this stage. It is clear that Network Rail’s overall performance has not been satisfactory in recent years and we need a change within the business to deliver a more customer-focused policy. Network Rail has committed to transformation and an efficiency programme of change. That will see it judged on the performance it delivers for passengers in partnership with train operators. We continue to push Network Rail to devolve to ensure that there is one route managing director directly accountable to passengers.

Rail Franchises: Govia Thameslink

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, we broadly accept the recommendations of the NAO report. We accept we have made mistakes and are learning lessons. I assure the noble Baroness that we will put passengers at the forefront in our future franchising decisions. We are listening to passengers and acting on what they tell us. We are opening public consultations as part of the franchising process and will use the responses to inform our decisions.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, could the Minister explain one thing in the National Audit Office report? It said that the timetable that the Department for Transport agreed could not, according to Network Rail, be operated and that it was trying to put too many trains on the line. I understand there is the same problem on the east coast main line, which is why things have gone wrong there. When will the Government look at the timetables, with Network Rail, before they let franchises?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the department did take National Rail’s views on feasibility into account. As part of the evaluation of the bids for this franchise, and indeed all franchises, we look at National Rail’s concerns. It had concerns about all of the bidders’ timetables propositions in this instance, although Govia’s proposition had a lower risk rating than other bidders. Network Rail said that the proposed timetable needed more development at the beginning of the franchise, and we agreed with that. The Thameslink timetable was some years off, and the project, as the noble Lord knows, was a complex one. We always accepted that more work would need to be done, and we have been working with Network Rail to finalise the timetable. I agree with the noble Lord that we need to work more closely with Network Rail to make sure that the timetables can be delivered in the future.

Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (Science and Technology Report)

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl and his committee on a thorough report, which made fascinating reading. Some of the government responses are pretty good, too, but they do not go far enough. I agree with the committee that there is too much focus on highly automated private road vehicles, as the report says in the summary.

Other noble Lords have talked about some of the other sectors that need to be discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, talked about preventing jaywalkers, but what about me on my bike? Do I want to be controlled automatically, or do I have to have a special bike lane? Will I have to use exercise to move it or will it be electric, as it is at the moment? There are lots of things to talk about; that needs looking at at some stage.

The other issue that I have been looking at in the past few months is that of cruise ships in the high Arctic and Antarctic, and what happens when something goes wrong and people have to evacuate and be picked up again. I hope to have a debate about it in the new year. I am honorary president of the United Kingdom Maritime Pilots’ Association. One of my pilot friends told me that you have to be careful in the Arctic. There are lots of rocks and islands there, as we all know, but there is also very bad GPS coverage because nobody goes there—and therefore there are no satellites. I am not sure whether that is true, but it is something that will be vital if we want to get this one-inch accuracy that has been talked about. It will be just as important to have that accuracy further north and in other places as it will be around the UK. I shall leave that—I am sure the Minister will not necessarily be able to respond to me tonight, but it is something we need to look at in future.

I want to concentrate on the role of government and the private sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, the Government’s role is to facilitate and sometimes fund research and ensure that there is value for money and fair play in competition. Industry develops the systems at high cost, as noble Lords have said, probably worldwide and generally in competition, because that is what drives the innovation. Where do those meet?

When we talk about infrastructure, whether roads, cable or rail, we probably want only one set of infrastructure because it is so expensive, even if some people want to build new roads around the place to go faster, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested. In most places, one set of infrastructure is probably a good thing. You get several competing suppliers of the kind of kit that goes on the vehicles and the infrastructure. Recently, I chaired a conference on cable infrastructure—nothing to do with broadband, I am afraid. But somebody from Virgin broadband said that they would have to dig up every street in the country to put parallel cables to BT’s because their cables would be better than BT’s. That may be the case—I do not know—but what we should have done 10 or 20 years ago was say that there was one piece of infrastructure, cables or whatever type they were, with one infrastructure manager, properly controlled, who would then be able to allow all the different cable companies and so on to use that infrastructure on a fair basis. Where it will go now, I do not know—but it is an example of where we got it wrong in the past.

The railways have got it wrong, too, in a different way, because they have a new signalling system called ERTMS, which we are told will increase the capacity of railway lines by between 20% and 30%. Network Rail is doing quite well with this, but it relies on four or five different suppliers—at least European, if not world suppliers—providing the kit. For the last 10 years, the industry has been fighting, because these suppliers all produce wonderful kit but it is not interoperable. If we got Siemens equipment on a train and Alstom on the track, it did not work. The European Commission and our Government have been trying very hard to get this interoperability, and I think that they have just about got there, but has taken 10 years. I would have started encouraging the Chinese to add a bit of competition to see what would happen. But it has taken a very long time. The question in people’s minds has always been whether the four suppliers were trying to run a nice cartel, screwing the Government and the customer for delays and high costs. I do not have an answer to that, of course; I do not think anybody has. But it is very important that, when the same thing happens on road, as I am sure that it will, there is a clear definition of who is doing what, where the private sector can provide a really good service and where the Government have to facilitate.

The last issue that I would like to raise is one that the noble Earl raised in his opening remarks about the benefits and costs. Government does not have a very good reputation on cost benefits, whether with the Navy, the railways or roads. The west coast main line was going to increase capacity by 30%, as I said, and the costs shot through the roof; it got stopped, and now we are having a high-speed line instead. With all these things, it is very difficult to judge what happens at junctions. Straight roads and railways are fine—but when you get to junctions it gets much more complicated and reduces the capacity.

There is also the question of what costs of accidents one puts into this model. A year or two ago, I think I established from government figures that the cost of a fatality on the road was about £300,000. That means that, if you could stop the thing happening again for under £300,000, you would do it but, if you could not, you would not, so to speak. On the railway, it is £2 million. Those two figures should be the same. Somebody is hurt or has died; the cost of putting it right should be the same. That needs to be very carefully looked at by the Government as we take this forward.

I conclude by repeating that the relationship between government and industry suppliers is fundamental to success, whether in agriculture, roads, railways or anything. I am not sure that this was recognised as strongly as it should be in the report and the government response—but I am sure that it will be in future. It is a great step forward even having this report at all.

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

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Cumbria County Council and, more particularly, as a railwayman’s son from Carlisle. I, too, welcome the establishment of Transport for the North. I think it is excellent that we will now have a planning and co-ordinating body that will bring some coherence and, we hope, a transport strategy for the north.

I follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said about resources. In repeating the statement, the noble Baroness referred to a sum of £260 million for which Transport for the North would be responsible. What caught my eye in the recent Budget Statement was paragraph 4.53 on infrastructure delivery, which talks about the Infrastructure and Projects Authority setting out a 10-year projection of public and private investment in infrastructure in Britain of around £600 billion.

The interesting question is how much of this £600 billion will come under the purview of Transport for the North. I very much look forward to the noble Baroness being able to tell me in her reply. Mr Hammond promised some worthwhile things in the Budget. For instance, in the transforming cities fund, there was £243 million for Greater Manchester and £134 million for the Liverpool City Region. There was a £300 million fund for ensuring the links between HS2 and other infrastructure in both the north and the Midlands, but £300 million is not very much. Of course, there is the new rolling stock for the Metro—one of the finest achievements of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, when he was Transport Secretary in the Callaghan Government.

We need more information. My county of Cumbria has vast unmet infrastructure needs. I have a letter here that I could read out about Cumbria’s requirements for road investment. I am conscious of the requirement for rail investment. The west coast main line has been modernised, but the coastal railway, which goes through some of the most beautiful country in England, up to Sellafield and then on to Carlisle, is back in the 19th century in its infrastructure. Yet we are talking about a new nuclear power station being built in west Cumbria and how we try to relieve traffic congestion in the Lake District. These questions need to be addressed, and they will all cost money.

I say just three things on money. First, in my view, London and the south-east should make a bigger contribution. They constitute one of the richest parts of Europe, and I would like the Mayor of London given power to raise more money through property taxation in London for infrastructure investment. Secondly, as long as you stick to the traditional cost-benefit analyses of how transport schemes are assessed, you will always end up with London and south-east projects at the top of the list. That is because there is not a broad enough conception of public value in how transport projects are assessed.

Thirdly, I do not want the Secretary of State for Transport telling us that he has no money in his budget, because that has been exposed as a total fallacy by his decision on the east coast franchise in the last few weeks. He has basically allowed Virgin and Stagecoach to run away with hundreds of millions of pounds that they owed on their franchise payments—possibly as high as £1.5 billion, I am told. He has allowed them to run away with that, because he was not prepared to go along to the House of Commons and admit that their franchise had failed. That is money that could have been spent on transport projects in the north of England; it has not been spent—and what is the explanation?

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that so many local authorities have got together and persuaded the Government to form this new organisation. As the Minister said, in geographical terms it is probably the 10th-largest area of its kind in Europe. It goes from Newcastle down to Lincolnshire, right across to Cheshire and Liverpool and up to Cumbria; it is an enormous area, and it is a real success that they have managed to do this.

The Minister said that it would be useful for the Department for Transport—I hope that I have got this right—to give advice. From Regulation 5, “General Functions”, it seems to me that Transport for the North will be giving advice to the Secretary of State. It says that among its general functions is,

“to prepare a transport strategy”—

yes. Then it refers to providing advice to the Secretary of State about how he should exercise his transport functions. Thirdly, it has the function,

“to co-ordinate the carrying out of transport functions”.

Fourthly, it says that it must tell the Secretary of State if it thinks that TfN can do it better. To me, that is very much the Secretary of State retaining control. Perhaps the Minister could explain where the devolution is in all this. It is nice having lots of advice, and everything, but the devolution does not seem to be there; it is still going to be the Secretary of State who has the control.

Other noble Lords have mentioned money. The £250 million that the Minister mentioned is really pretty derisory, compared with Crossrail 2, which I believe will cost £30 billion and HS2, which I think will cost £100 billion, which, of course, connects to the north. But I suspect that many people in that enormous area, as other noble Lords have said, would like to be better connected within the area rather than getting to London 10 minutes quicker. So there is a real mismatch between what London is getting and what the north needs to get. I hope that the Minister can put me right on both those issues. Is it real devolution? Can Transport for the North really make decisions and have the money to spend it as it wants?

Last week, in a local newspaper in Bolton, Lancashire, a comment was made that the Secretary of State had refused the Mayor of Manchester—and this may also be the case regarding other big stations in the north—control of the station so that they can do it up and make it more attractive, getting more passengers and more retail. Why does London have to control the colour of the paint, or what is done locally in these stations, if the local people want to do it and can make some money? We really have to let go of London having control of everything and let this new organisation have real powers. If it fails, the Government know what to do, but I think that it will be a great success.