Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. This is one of these usual discussions that we have in this House on lists and on who should be included and who should not.

There are many similarities between the list on page 5 and that on page 42. Amendment 91, which my noble friend will probably speak to, makes the extraordinary suggestion of adding in the customer or the customer’s representative. That is missing from both lists. It is quite extraordinary that stakeholders and their representatives—whether it is any of the bus passenger representative groups, local or national—are not included. As my noble friend said, they might be,

“such other persons as the authority or authorities think fit”,

but I think that we all know of instances where authorities have chosen not to consult a particular body of stakeholders because they do not like them for some reason. That is not a good reason, but it happens and I have plenty of experience of it happening. It would therefore be good to include the two amendments in my noble friend Lord Whitty’s name and the two similar amendments to do with stakeholders’ involvement.

While I am on my feet, I might say that it is interesting that paragraph (d) in both lists refers to “a traffic commissioner”. If I lived in Cornwall, it would be no good consulting a traffic commissioner for the south-east of England. He or she as a traffic commissioner would probably not know much about the area. Given that the subsequent paragraph in each list states,

“the chief officer of police for each police area covering the whole or part of that area”,

it seems to me that the traffic commissioner should be relevant to wherever the services will run. I have not put down an amendment on this, but perhaps the Minister will consider it for the next stage.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Amendments 16 and 46, in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, and Amendment 92, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would require consultation on an advanced quality partnership or franchising scheme to include recognised trade unions or other representatives elected or appointed by employees affected by the proposals.

Both Section 113G(3), on page 5, and Section 123E(4), on page 17, list who should be consulted. It is both surprising and disappointing that the recognised representatives of the employees are not included in this list. These amendments seek to correct that, and I hope that the Government will give their full support to this, since why would we not want to hear from the employees? They have an absolute wealth of knowledge and experience that would be very valuable to the company in putting these schemes together, and it seems obvious that we would want to include them. I am in full agreement with the comments of all my noble friends who have spoken in this short debate and I look forward to what I hope will be a positive response.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

17A: Clause 1, page 6, line 14, leave out from “or” to end of line 16

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee, because Amendments 17A and 17B should have been grouped. We have already discussed Amendment 17B: it is to do with standards and frequencies. I do not intend to repeat everything now, but if one took the two amendments together, the effect would be to remove sub-paragraph (iii) on page 6, line 15, and turn it into separate paragraphs (h) and (i), which would put frequency and service under the same level of specification as all the other items in that list.

I hope that I have explained that properly and put it on the record. I do not need to detain the Committee with it too much tonight, because when one gets a wet towel and looks at it, it will be obvious. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the proposals for an advanced partnership scheme include the ability for local authorities to impose standards of service on bus operators running services on routes included in the scheme. These standards are set out in new Section 113E(4) and (5) of the Transport Act 2000. The Bill does not currently require all those standards to be imposed at once when the scheme is made by the local authority. New Section 113H(2)(g) allows a local authority to phase in the requirements of the scheme. This might be because the local authority needs time to introduce certain facilities or measures—for example, new bus lanes, bus shelters or bus stops. For bus operators, it might be that they need time to procure new vehicles that meet a particular emissions standard or to recruit and train new staff. The amendment as tabled by the noble Lord would not allow the local authority to phase in the standards of service that apply to bus operators. They would be required to meet all the requirements when the scheme is introduced.

We believe that this would be an unnecessary restriction. As I have already explained, there may be very good reasons why some of these standards may need to be introduced after the scheme is made. The inability of a local authority to phase in standards may mean that those standards are not included in the scheme, or that some bus operators are forced to cancel services. I am sure that neither of these outcomes is the intent behind the proposals because neither would be in the interest of passengers. Therefore, it is right that local authorities should have flexibility to tailor the introduction of a scheme to suit local needs and circumstances. On the basis of the reasons I have stated, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation and shall read it with interest. For now, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 17A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, passenger transport executives are local government bodies responsible for public transport within large urban areas. They are accountable to bodies called integrated transport authorities or, where combined authorities have been formed, to those authorities. The Bill originally amended Section 162(4) of the Transport Act 2000 to provide that references to integrated transport authorities in specified sections of the Transport Act 2000 should be read as references to the passenger transport executive for the integrated transport authority concerned. After further consideration of whether provisions of this nature would be required for advanced quality partnerships, enhanced partnerships and franchising, we concluded that it was not necessary to make explicit provision. Therefore, this amendment removes the amendments to Section 162(4) of the Transport Act 2000.

In this group, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, whom I cannot see in his place, tabled Amendment 22 to make it clear that the executive of an integrated transport authority or combined authority must exercise the franchising functions on behalf of the franchising authority. For the record, I am sympathetic to the aims of the amendment; devolution is an important theme which has influenced the development of this Bill. I want to ensure that franchising is a realistic option where it makes sense locally, and I agree entirely that there will be different governance arrangements in different areas that must be accommodated.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, is not here, but I hope I have highlighted the Government’s intent.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bradley on Amendment 22. It is one of these odd arrangements when you have, in one group, the Minister moving a government amendment and then somebody else proposing an amendment, so the Minister answers before you have stated the case. But I do want to state the case. My noble friend is very apologetic.

The purpose of this amendment is to make it possible for a passenger transport executive to enter into a local service contract with operators once the ITA or combined authority has decided to implement a franchising scheme. New Section 123A(4) of the Transport Act 2000 sets out which bodies qualify as franchising authorities, but the list does not include passenger transport executives. In a number of metropolitan areas, the PTE continues to be the executive body for transport responsible to the combined authority. This amendment would explicitly allow a PTE to be the contracting body if that was judged most appropriate locally.

The amendment would also help to future-proof the legislation, given the way the Government’s arrangements continue to evolve in different ways in different areas. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister’s response to this. That is the message from my noble friend Lord Bradley.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, very briefly, first, we accept the case made by the Minister that Amendment 20 is a tidying-up amendment and that it is not necessary to make explicit provision in the Transport Act 2000 for advanced quality partnerships, franchising and enhanced partnerships. We are therefore content with this change.

We also support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Bradley, which would extend the prescriptive proposals on franchising authority functions to the executive of an integrated transport authority if needed. This reflects the reality of decision-making in a number of larger authorities and is therefore a more practical application of the Bill. We were very pleased to hear that the Minister has agreed to take that away and do more work on it. We look forward to hearing the outcome of those further deliberations.

Migrants

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. The National Maritime Information Centre brings together information and intelligence provided by Border Force, the coastguard, the police, the Armed Forces, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Marine Management Organisation, as well as by the National Crime Agency. It co-ordinates that intelligence for the benefit of all these agencies.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that an agreement between Britain and France on migrants involves both parties agreeing? Has he seen a report from Paris this morning which says that the French Government are so concerned about the UK leaving the European Union that they will abrogate all those agreements as quickly as possible and encourage many more migrants to set foot in England and claim asylum?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

One has to bear in mind that the French authorities are concerned about the movement of migrants through France, as well as those entering Britain. They therefore maintain an intelligence and border presence for these purposes. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that they would abandon these efforts simply because one country chose to leave the Union.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I too very much welcome this Bill. It is an opportunity to discuss, debate and I hope improve what I think has been one of the rather forgotten parts of the transport industry. I was interested in the background that came from the Minister and from the noble Lord, Lord Low, regarding comments made by Andrew Jones MP, the Minister, about the intended growth numbers on buses.

The main thing that is missing—there are probably many others—is a long-term vision and a strategy. There is one for railways, one for roads—the strategic road network—and I shall come on to the Government’s published cycling and walking strategy, but there does not seem to be one for bus transport. As we have heard from many noble Lords, it is a growing part of the demand for transport. It is interesting that only 18 months ago—in a Written Answer on 24 November 2014—the Department for Transport was forecasting a 25% drop in bus usage by 2040. There is a similar growth in car usage, so are the Government expecting bus usage to go up or are they just hoping that there will be fewer buses on the road to stop their big fat cars going down?

Today, the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, of which I am secretary, had its annual parliamentary bike ride to try to encourage more people to cycle. We also launched a response to the Government’s excellent cycling and walking strategy. It could be better but it is not bad. It was interesting that this morning the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who famously in about 1980 told the unemployed that they should get on their bikes, wrote to the co-chair of our All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, Ruth Cadbury MP, in the following terms:

“I was sorry to read in your recent circular of your proposal to increase peak hour traffic congestion in central London on Wednesday”,

which is today. This is because of the bike ride. He continued:

“Not only is that a nuisance, but by increasing congestion it will increase pollution”.

We had 150 bikes going through Hyde Park, increasing the pollution. He suggested that we should “cancel this foolish exhibition”.

More recently, Iain Duncan Smith as a Minister in 2010, told the unemployed in Merthyr Tydfil that they should get on a bus to Cardiff where there were plenty of jobs. I do not know whether it is a long-term view of the Conservative Party that only the unemployed and disadvantaged—presumably this includes the disabled disadvantaged—should have to go by bike.

It would be nice to see a strategy that was a bit more positive and recognised the great importance of buses in moving people around, as many noble Lords said. That is also reflected in the number of Questions and Statements about this issue in this House and the other place. We can compare the number of Questions about rail services with those about bus services. I have not worked it out, but it is probably about 20:1. Actually, buses are probably more important for many people than rail services. There are more than 4 billion passenger journeys by bus a year. It is just that there is a pretty awful service in many places outside London, as many Lords said. There is a lot more to do. I would love to see the Minister commit to introducing and publishing a draft strategy for buses. It would be even nicer if that were put in the Library before we move into Committee. That would help us all, including the industry, to work out what investment plans it should have and how it should respond to this Bill, and, I hope, move things forward a bit faster.

Turning to a few issues that we need to address in future, several noble Lords mentioned through-ticketing. It is very nice that Clause 7 of the Bill says that a local transport authority or others,

“may make a ticketing scheme”.

Now, of course, “may” covers a multitude of sins. Why should they not have a ticketing scheme? Why should we not be able to buy a ticket from here to Cornwall—like my noble friend Lord Woolmer, I shall talk about Cornwall in a few minutes—on several different bus routes? If you are clever, you could probably get that as a pensioner for nothing but that is a separate issue. Why should we not be able to buy tickets in advance? You can on the railways. You can get a through-ticket from Penzance to John O’Groats, or wherever, if you really want. You can also get tickets on local services. We even have the Gatwick-London service on Oyster now. Why should we not have the same on buses and be able to integrate them with trams and railways? That really should be possible. I know it is possible technically. There are even people talking about buying railway journeys across Europe with one ticket, which is quite a challenge. We should change “may” to “must” in the Bill, and also include the smaller services in rural areas. We can debate whether that extends to Uber or any other taxi service but there is a lost opportunity here.

I will not comment much on Cornwall, even though I live there, because my noble friend dealt with it so excellently. However, you have small operators and big operators, and there is an opportunity for what we might call open-access operators to operate on similar routes to franchised operators. That is extremely challenging on the railways. Whether it can be made possible on the bus services I do not know but we will need to investigate that. Of course, we do not really have a regulator of bus services, as we do for railways. Who will act as regulator? Will it be the councils? Yet, no councils will be vetting franchises because apparently they are not clever enough. They should be able to, as other noble Lords said. There is also the question of whether community interest companies have a role to play in operating not-for-profit smaller services— minibuses, shared taxis—or even bigger buses in rural areas. Again, what authority—if there is one—will specify the content, services and everything else? Does there need to be one? That is a debate we must have.

The Minister has not said anything about the role of Transport Focus, which a year or two ago had its remit extended beyond railways to include buses. That body does an extremely good job and is independent. It occasionally has a go at services and Ministers in its reports. I hope the Minister can tell us that it will have an independent role in monitoring performance, quality, fares, reliability and all the things that customers want.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

I am fascinated by, and very sympathetic to, the arguments my noble friend is putting forward. Does he agree that one of the interesting and vivid examples of the interdependence of bus and rail services for those of us who are regular rail users is the number of times at weekends when we set out by rail but have a very good experience of bus services on the way?

[Lord Berkeley]

My noble friend hits the nail on the head. One could say many things about that. The railways must get a lot better at keeping services going or diverting trains by some other route. I have travelled to Cornwall a lot and on some routes the operator has the bus services much better organised than was the case five years ago. However, there is always room for improvement. My noble friend is absolutely right, but at least in that case you are still using the same ticket, whereas if you got on a bus from one station to another you would probably have to buy another ticket.

I turn to the Isles of Scilly service, which I mentioned briefly in the debate on the Queen’s Speech. My noble friend Lord Judd has hit the nail on the head because if you want to travel to the Isles of Scilly between Sunday and Monday on the excellent Great Western Railway’s sleeper service, it conveniently arrives five minutes after the “Scillonian” has departed from Penzance. I have been on about this for about five years. Why cannot the relevant service leave an hour earlier? Apparently, it is again something to do with digging up the railways. It could leave an hour earlier because not many people have pressing business in London at 11.30 on a Sunday night. However, that has still not happened. One has to question why. I may or may not table an amendment on this issue—this is a buses Bill—but if the words “and ferries” were added to the Bill, you could cover some of the issues relating to the ferry service between Penzance and the Isles of Scilly, which operates only in the summer when the prices shoot up, and try to co-ordinate the timetable with the rail service to Penzance. However, that seems to be beyond the means of most humans.

There will be a lot to debate in Committee. I welcome the opportunity offered by the Bill to have some good discussions. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward a measure that is more useful to most inhabitants of this country than one on launching rockets into space, which I think is the only other Department for Transport Bill that we were promised in the Queen’s Speech.

Railways: Open Access Applications

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I agree with the noble Lord; he is quite right to raise the issues that have arisen. Equally, on the issue of open access, I share his concerns and that is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written directly to the ORR to underline that any changes and reforms put the customer at their heart and, indeed, that we ensure equity of access and, most importantly, taxpayer return on the investment made.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Will the noble Lord explain the Government’s policy on competition in the passenger sector? The operators of the open access services pay a much-reduced track access charge compared with the franchises. How can that be fair on either the travelling public or the operators?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I agree with the noble Lord, because open access has raised this very valid issue of the inequity of application of track fees and the associated costs. Notwithstanding the reports that have been done by, for example, the CMA, which highlighted the importance of competition, the Government’s position remains that we of course support competition but need to ensure equality of access, both for those operating the franchise and for those who come in through open access.

Airport Expansion: Road and Rail Upgrades

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am sure that the noble Baroness was not suggesting that I was mad—but I will read Hansard carefully. She is quite right to raise the issue of air pollution. As I said, it will be given due consideration in the wider environmental impacts that the Government are looking at.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that a few years ago, the solution to the problem of emissions around Heathrow was to put the M4 and the M25 in a tunnel, so that the emissions would come out at the ends, away from the airport? That would have reduced the level of emissions. Is that still on TfL’s agenda?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That is an interesting suggestion—but I cannot say that it is something to which I personally subscribe.

Road Traffic Act 1988 (Alcohol Limits) (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Friday 22nd April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Minister is going to look at further evidence on the effect of lowering the alcohol limit on people driving to pubs, could he look at evidence relating to people, including younger people, not drinking alcohol but still driving to pubs with other people who may drink? There is evidence that suggests that some younger people are much more responsible than older people when it comes to drinking and driving.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As someone who during his university days was often the driver for others who were merrier in the car, I can perhaps reflect on a personal dimension. Of course, the noble Lord is quite right that we need to consider the full impact of that and to look at the evidence base as presented.

Cyclists: Road Traffic Laws

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

At present the Government’s commitment is to the Bikeability programme, which is training young people in the use of cycles and making them aware of the position of motorists as well.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, what is the penalty for a breach of the Highway Code by way of either pavement cycling or a cyclist going through a red light?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

There are a variety of offences that may arise in respect of cycling, under both the Highways Act 1835—cycling on the footway—and the Road Traffic Act 1988. A number of steps can be taken, beginning with a warning, followed by a fixed penalty notice of £50, followed by prosecution for a summary offence, which itself would impose a maximum fine of £500. However, under the Road Traffic Act, there are also further, more serious offences such as dangerous cycling, which can attract a fine of up to £2,500.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, could the Minister confirm that in one sense cyclists are treated unfairly?

[Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to make the point that it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It was actually the turn of the Labour Benches before but I thought it was right that we kept going in order to save time. Let us go to the Labour Benches now, and if we have time we will go to the Cross Benches.

[Lord Berkeley]

I shall be quick. Could the Minister confirm that PCSOs are able to fine cyclists on the spot for going through stop lines but are unable to fine cars? Is that not unfair on the cyclists?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I do not believe it is unfair on cyclists. One has to remember that in the case of the vehicle, registration can be traced. In the case of the cyclists there is no registration, and therefore an on-the-spot fine is more appropriate.

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mair, on a wonderful maiden speech. One thing he may not know is that his appearance has increased the number of civil engineers in this place by 25%. I would argue that it means there are not enough civil engineers here in the first place. He is very eminent—much more eminent than me, anyway, but I cannot speak for my colleagues—and it is wonderful to have him here. Perhaps a few more will come in later years to boost the engineering expertise in your Lordships’ House.

Many speakers have spoken to support the line. I support HS2 and I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I have been helping to promote an alternative scheme for Euston station, which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has outlined, and I will speak a little more about that later. Some of your Lordships have questioned what are, for many more people, important details and the attitude of HS2 in responding to them. While I am sure that we should be building a high-speed line, there are high speeds and high speeds. One or two other noble Lords have asked whether we should be designing something for 400 kilometres an hour or 300 kilometres an hour, when the cost of the trains may go up by 50%.

Then there are the higher operation costs. You would probably have to slow down in the long tunnels—we have already debated how long they are. How should we link that with getting in the first instance, to Birmingham 20 minutes quicker but then spending 20 minutes walking from the new station to New Street if you want to go on to Wolverhampton or other stations? We need to look at overall journey times, which many noble Lords have spoken about. At the other end of the spectrum the Euston express scheme, which I shall talk about, would reduce the walking time to the Underground quite significantly. I think there are still debates going on about stations for Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham in phase two. We need to look at all these things to see the most cost-effective solution to getting extra capacity, which I think we are all agreed should happen. So far, I have some serious doubts about the performance of HS2, particularly in respect of its approach to and performance at the House of Commons Select Committee.

Perhaps I may speak briefly about the Euston express scheme. As is normal in France, Germany and Italy, most, if not all, their stations on high-speed lines are not out of town. The high-speed lines do not go into the centre because it is very expensive to demolish inner-city properties. They go on to the classic lines for the last few miles to go into the mainline station, which is often refurbished. This can be seen in France and Germany; I accept that Frankfurt airport is a slight exception but that is the normal trend and it is much less disruptive.

What we can do is put all the trains—HS2 and west coast main line—into the existing bit of the station, by building extra platforms where there are those wide bits and diverting the tunnels on Old Oak Common to pop up near Queen’s Park station, and run down the existing lines. That would involve extending the station southwards towards Euston Road and putting a deck over the whole lot to get an integrated station for all the platforms, which really would enhance the station quite dramatically. More importantly, it would reduce the costs—which I will come back to later—could be done in about half the time and would solve some of the problems that the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, mentioned earlier for the charities. It is part of a petition by Sam Price to the Commons, and I am sure he will be presenting it again in the Lords. Most importantly, discussions with Network Rail, Transport for London and HS2 have demonstrated that there are no show-stoppers, either during the construction or the operation.

I want to concentrate on the process of using the Select Committee to give permissions. I was involved in the committees for the Channel Tunnel, HS1 and Crossrail, and I briefly chaired a Private Bill Committee on a Norfolk Broads Bill. One thing I learned is that committees must act in a judicial capacity when hearing petitions and listening to promoters’ responses. They must listen, and they do, certainly in your Lordships’ House. Having heard the petitions, the committee then forms a view on the issues. It may request further studies from the promoter and publishes reports.

I know that is what our House of Lords committee will do, but sadly my experience hearing the petitions and discussions from many residents’ groups in the Camden area to the Commons committee was that it fell far short of the independence and fairness which I believe is so important for a promoter to get agreement to enhance the credibility of a scheme and its own work. I am not being critical of the decisions that the committee took, but I am critical of the way it appeared —at least when it neared the end of its work and was considering petitions towards the London end—to have more or less given up, lost interest and taken everything that the promoters said or asserted without question. Maybe it is under pressure from Ministers—I do not know—but it should have resisted. My noble friends Lord Stevenson and Lady Young hinted at similar things.

I will give the House one or two examples. Two days before my friend, the petitioner for Euston Express, appeared, HS2 wrote him a letter saying the scheme would not work:

“The EE proposal does not envisage providing the European GC gauge which is a legal requirement”.

Two days later, under cross-examination, HS2 admitted that that was not the case. You cannot change the law in two days. I knew it was not a legal requirement, so why did HS2 write a letter saying it was? It is absolutely fundamental to any scheme that you get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Then HS2 said that the Euston Express scheme was more expensive than its scheme. It could not provide any evidence and was challenged in cross-examination. Even after several meetings, it still cannot substantiate the cost of its AP3 scheme at Euston. I do not believe it knows what the costs are, and I suspect that Ministers in the future will be approached by HS2, which will say, “We have a bit of a problem, Minister. Can we have another £10 million or so?” “I don’t know, I’m working on it”. It is not good.

It is not just me and my petitioner friend complaining. Many residents have said to me that the construction will be massively disruptive to their properties and lives in Camden over 20 years. Eventually, HS2 gave them a chart of monthly noise forecasts—which, incidentally, last for 20 years—which arrived the day after the Camden cutting group had appeared in front of the committee. That is not the right way of doing it. They also said that the Euston Express scheme would require a high level of night-time noise due to the need to rebuild some of the tracks. The committee included that in its report without it ever appearing to have been debated.

Finally, those who live in the grade 1 listed buildings beside the track in Camden were told on several occasions by HS2 that they could get double glazing to keep the noise out. I think most of us know that if you have a grade 1 listed building, you cannot put in double glazing that easily—certainly not the plastic type that will probably be wanted.

The recurring theme from HS2 is to give as little information as possible, delay as much as possible and then later on say, “We have not got enough time to do anything, so you have just got to accept our scheme”. The plan that seems to be going through is full of assertions. That is why I have put down these Motions, which I will come to. I hope that Ministers in the mean time will review the whole policy of how HS2 behaves and relates to petitioners, because it is in Ministers’ interests to get it right. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, he may argue that we need only one Select Committee hearing between the two Houses, but it has to be the right one. I am confident that our one will be, but I am not very happy about the way that the Commons one was done.

I turn now to my two Motions on the Order Paper. The first one suggests that the committee hears evidence from London at an early stage. There are two reasons for this. First, sadly, it is a a well-known fact that committees get bored eventually and Ministers put pressure on them to hurry up. Secondly, there is also uncertainty about the plans for Euston, and early consideration of petitions would enable the committee, if it so wished, to instruct HS2 to do further work.

There are a couple of examples of the problem, which Camden is very concerned about—I had an email from it this morning. I have not had anything to do with the rail freight side of this in this petition, but HS2 is saying that it cannot do spoil by rail and is still working on it. At the moment, it is 2,000 trucks a day out of Camden, every day for three years. Can your Lordships imagine that? This was petitioned against two years ago, but they only started talking six months ago and then said it would take nine months or something to produce a report. That is nice, because by the time it has produced a report and it has gone to the committee, and there has been a decision, it will be too late to order rail wagons or get the rail companies involved. They will say it is too late and it has to go by road.

Camden is in the same position over its plans for Euston, which involve having a level deck above and shortening the time. HS2 has promised Camden a report, but it has not come. So it is a question of when the best time is for Camden to petition. It will be speaking to the committee, but there is a whole policy of delay, delay and delay until it is too late. I will not of course press this Motion to a vote, but it is important that your Lordships’ committee understands the problem.

I will just quote one comment from the chair of the Commons Select Committee last year, on 7 July 2015, about Camden and what is happening. The chair said:

“Literally on a number of occasions, we’ve kept saying, ‘When are we going to hear what’s going to happen at Euston?’ Because I would quite like to have dealt with the plans for Euston early in the process, in case they need to be changed, with additional provisions, and if they’re right at the end, then if they’re not right, then it will delay the whole Bill”.

Your Lordships know that we cannot have additional provisions here, so because HS2 has delayed this and been criticised by the committee, it has still not come up with a report. I hope that the committee will look at these very carefully, decide on the best way to do it and then go for it. I do not know whether it is to have two bites of the cherry, but I know that many of the local individual petitioners would like to come on early for those reasons and that it is something to talk about.

Finally—and I apologise for detaining the House for so long—I address what I believe is the need for the committee to have a special adviser on technical and railway matters. I thought that it would be useful to have one, given the comments about no specialists in your Lordships’ House on these issues being allowed on the committee—although I am sure that it will be a very objective and professional committee. In the Commons, it got to the stage when the promoter, HS2, was advising the committee on the merits or otherwise, technically, of promoters’ views. The chair, Robert Syms MP, winding up, said that thanks were extended to HS2 for its helpful advice on the technical interpretation of petitioners’ evidence. He might have added that the committee accepted without challenge much of this advice. That is not how the Select Committee should work, in my view—but that is a matter for the House of Commons. I know that the committee here will not do that, but it might just want to have a special adviser. I am advised by the clerks that if it wants a special adviser there has to be a Motion from this House allowing it to have one.

I shall leave it there. I shall support my noble friend’s petition in the House of Lords. To conclude, I wish the committee well, and am very confident that it will uphold the high reputation that this House has for dealing with things properly, fairly and thoroughly.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Berkeley]

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Bill is committed that it consider petitions from the London area at an early stage.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, before I decide whether to move this Motion, first I should say that I am very happy with the Minister’s answer to the first Motion. I think that it is perfectly reasonable that the Select Committee should be able to decide itself the order in which it considers evidence. However, could he clarify in respect of the second Motion, if the committee subsequently wanted to have a special adviser, whether it would need an instruction from the House or whether it could do it on its own initiative?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me, as I am mindful of the previous questions about the role of the Select Committee, that if I can cover that matter I shall include it in my response in writing. I trust that that will satisfy him for the time being.

[Lord Berkeley]

On the basis that I can always put this same Motion down another time, I shall not move it now.

Motion not moved.

Tabled by

[Lord Berkeley]

That is be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Bill is committed that it appoint a special adviser to provide independent advice on railway and engineering issues.

Motion not moved.

Railways: New Lines

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage new or reopened rail lines to be cost-effective.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are taking many steps to ensure that all rail enhancement projects, including those working towards opening or reopening rail lines, follow government appraisal guidelines and create business cases which test options ensuring best value for the taxpayer. Local authorities and private sector beneficiaries are encouraged to contribute to the overall costs of the preparation and delivery of such projects to decrease the burden on the public purse.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer but does he agree that part of the problem is the very high costs that come out of some of these calculations which indicate that there is not really good value for money? Does he not agree that the answer is actually to have a set of standards appropriate to branch lines or lower-speed and cheaper track, and to cheaper trains—possibly not even signalling, more like a bus—which would be very good for local services but of course totally inappropriate for a main line? Will he encourage the development of some standards that might reduce such costs?

Cycling

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the House is incredibly lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Young, free to talk about one of his favourite subjects. As he said, he has been banging on about cycling for 40 years. It was more difficult when he held different posts in the other place, but his speech demonstrated what a passionate supporter of cycling he is. He is one of the founders of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, of which I remain secretary. We heard some very good ideas from him, covering all kinds of needs for cycling. I add one that he missed: I believe that when it rains in Denmark the sequencing of the traffic lights is changed so that cyclists do not get so wet. That is rather a nice idea.

The noble Lord mentioned devolution, which comes up all the time because it is a good idea. It is good that expenditure, design and enthusiasm for cycling is devolved. On the other hand, we have to watch that that is not then an excuse for some local authorities to do nothing. There are still cyclists there. The Government need to make sure that their intentions, whatever they are, get carried out.

Devolution—we could almost call it “ducking responsibility”—has been an issue ever since the noble Lord, Lord Young, first spoke on cycling in 1975. It carried on in 1993 in a debate in this House, when the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who sadly is not here this evening, made similar statements about the need for local authorities to recognise cyclists’ needs. He hoped that it,

“would lead to more widespread action to improve facilities … which … would encourage more people to cycle”.—[Official Report, 21/4/1993; col. 1677.]

In his response, the then Minister said that most people cycled on local roads—I feel that he was trying to say, “It doesn’t matter very much because that’s for the local authority”—and that expenditure priorities should remain a matter for local decisions. We have heard that before.

As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, things are improving. In 2013, the all-party group published a document called Get Britain Cycling following an inquiry. Probably almost uniquely, when it was debated in the Commons Chamber it received an unopposed vote of support, which I thought indicated that the Members of Parliament thought that this was a good idea that needed supporting. It said that investment in cycling should be £10 per person per year. In response to a question yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said that it is currently around £6. Of course, that is a great increase on what we have seen before, but it does not link in with what the Cyclists’ Touring Club says. Its figure is more like £1.39 per person outside London. We know that London has some wonderful investment going in and that is really good, but when the Minister replies will he give some explanation of what the £6 covers and where it comes from? Many Ministers have given this figure, which is a really good one. It is not £10, but £6 is better than £1, or £2, or £3. Where does it come from, who will spend it, and on what? Is it ring-fenced to local authorities? Could they spend it on roads or footpaths? I conclude by comparing it to a headline today relating to a report by the Institute of Economic Affairs which says that each family in this country is paying £150 per year in taxes for railways. Divide that by the number of children in a family and it is an awful lot more than £6. Maybe at some stage the Minister can tell us what the equivalent figure is for roads. I look forward to his answers.