National Networks National Policy Statement

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this short Motion tonight. I think the text of the Motion is pretty clear to noble Lords: in simple terms, I believe that the Government have introduced the latest national networks national policy statement without proper consultation and I fear that it will end in tears.

These NNNPSs have been around since they were set up with the Planning Act 2008 and are supposed to be produced every five years or so. They can be debated in both Houses. The present one was debated in the other place. I think there were 10 Members of Parliament present, and everybody had the feeling that it was being pushed through by the Government. The same legislation basically requires any debate in the Lords to take place within what they call a “relevant period”, otherwise you do not get the benefit of a response from the Minister. I was only told about this particular need for a debate quite recently by the Transport Action Network, for which I am very grateful, but we are actually out of time already.

The Government have not actually designated this NNNPS yet, and I hope to get comments from the Minister in this debate to explore what they are going to do next. Last week, the Government lost a case in the High Court on climate change issues. The case was led by Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and the Good Law Project. They took legal action over the targets that the Government had put in the NNNPSs, having successfully challenged the previous budgets. The High Court ruled that Britain had breached legislation designed to help reach the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of keeping temperatures within 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-industrial levels, which required a new plan. The court effectively ruled that the NNNPS was illegal.

So my question to the Minister is: what next? Given that surface transport caused over 29% of UK emissions last year, it would be pretty foolish if the Government were to designate—in other words continue with—the NNNPS now. A lawful climate plan will inevitably require a fundamental and radical shift in transport policy, and we have not seen it yet. There is no sign of it. There are many examples that I could go through, but I will not, because a number of colleagues wish to speak. I have noted examples from organisations such as the Institution of Civil Engineers, the House of Commons Transport Committee and a lot of the other organisations that have submitted evidence. They are name-checked in the NNNPS, but just mentioning their names does not actually mean that the Government will do what the particular organisation says that they should do.

The Climate Change Committee’s report to Parliament stressed the importance of a

“systematic review of all current and proposed road schemes”.

That was in 2023. I am wondering where they are; maybe the Minister will be able to tell us. Many things in the Environment Act 2021 have not been translated into the NNNPS. Policy issues on cycling, wheeling, walking et cetera—particular interests of mine—are totally missing.

I have come to the conclusion, as I expect other noble Lords may have, that the Government have got a rather unsavoury record of ignoring any climate change documents or reports—even their own report—if they conflict with other policies. The two that I have come across govern oil production and building more roads. A couple of weeks ago, we had a debate in your Lordships’ House in Committee on the offshore oil and gas Bill. The Minister completely ignored the strong recommendations from the Environment Agency’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee—a statutory maritime advisory committee—not to drill oil in marine protected areas. The Minister totally ignored it, and the Government are going to go ahead. The same comment applies to the Department for Transport and the Climate Change Committee.

So I ask the Minister: what next? I could have divided the House on a Motion to Regret, but I am afraid that that does not solve the problem. If the Minister does nothing and the Government eventually designate this NNNPS, they will end up with multiple court cases and judicial reviews, which will likely stop them in their tracks because they have been defeated in the courts and they have to accept that. The presumption in favour of road building will also have to be looked at and obviously there will need to be changes to some of the planning laws.

The most important thing is for there to be an in-depth review of how the NNNPSs are actually created, and the role of other organisations who have an input, within government and outside. Some debate on them is a necessary part of NNNPSs being produced and they should be debated in both Houses in a proper, structured way.

I shall stop there. I beg to move and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, even though I think that regret Motions are pathetic, frankly. At least it means a debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

It is better than nothing.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It is better than nothing. As somebody who has watched this Government for a long time now, I cannot believe that they have backtracked on so many of their plans. Actually, they had very few plans to start with, but they seem to have backtracked on all of them about delivering net zero. They seem to not even understand what net zero means.

As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the Government were taken to court because it is obvious that the UK is going to fail to do its bit to save the planet—and they lost in court because they no longer believe in doing the right thing. They are now fighting another court case because they cut £200 million from the promotion of walking and cycling, a key part of delivering net zero.

I almost think that I—or someone else, possibly on this Bench—ought to write the Ladybird Book of Transport Policy for Climate Change Deniers, because, really, you do need to understand what we are going to see in the future. As has been said, transport accounts for nearly a third of emissions and, despite a million electric vehicles on our roads, those emissions have hardly changed in a decade. All the road building has led to extra cars and longer traffic jams. Instead of switching people away from their cars by creating places to live that are within easy, 15-minute walks of shops and services, this Government have run down bus services and built sprawling suburbs that actually increase the use of cars.

One big reason for the Government doing the wrong thing, rather than the right thing, is the millions that the Conservatives have received in donations from the oil and gas industry. Gas and oil people want drivers to spend longer driving to the shops and to fill up at petrol stations, because that means more money for them. Gas and oil do not really like people cycling or walking—all those cheap, easy things—because those people are not making them money. The big polluters finance Tufton Street think tanks and social media bots, because they want to squeeze as much money out of their planet-killing business as they possibly can.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that the Government have an unsavoury reputation on climate change. I do not think that it is unsavoury; it is ignorant. I do not understand how you can go through the last few years of hearing what is happening on climate change and still be so ignorant about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

For a few years.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

How many years in Government does the noble Lord want? Maybe a couple of terms. As such, I will focus my next few remarks to those in the next Government, because these national policy statements were Labour’s idea—and they are a really good idea. To make them work, we have to make sure that the Treasury listens and that the next Government get the funding to deliver real change.

When I was the Deputy Mayor of London to Ken Livingstone, I told him that, if we were to be serious about creating more cycling routes, we were going to need hundreds of millions a year. There was a huge shudder of shock around his whole office. It was eventually accepted that, if you want to change things and to get people more safely walking and cycling, you need the sort of money that we might spend on a new road. The truth is, if you build those opportunities, people will take them. We need to imagine a future that is better than what we have now and spend the money building that future.

Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I sat here on Monday on the first day of Committee and I wondered how much of the replying Minister’s speech was written already—that is, Ministers were not responding to any of the good sense or good words that they heard from this side of the Room. It struck me that that should be seen as a little more important than it was on Monday.

This is an important group, because it is asking what we want to use the subsidies for, rather than just saying, “How do we want to control subsidies?” Supporting areas of deprivation has to be a core principle in our subsidy schemes and everything the Government do. We are very lucky now; we have a department for levelling up and we have a White Paper. Apparently, the White Paper points out how unequal the UK is. If you measure it on any economic or social metric, it is incredibly unequal. We have to ask: what have the Government been doing for the past 12 years? Of course, they are a Conservative Government, so clearly the levelling-up agenda is to mop up all the damage they have done in the past 12 years. Tackling deprivation and inequality will take a lot more than fine words, and streamlining subsidy schemes that are tailored to overcoming deprivation would be a good start.

Similarly, we should be making it easy for public authorities to support cultural and environmental objectives. I support noble Lords who have spoken so far, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on this point, because it would be a great shame if the Bill were to interfere with achieving cultural and environmental objectives. We should concentrate on calculating social value as articulated in Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, as this is still a fledgling area of procurement practice and was one of the features of David Cameron’s early years as Prime Minister when he was still trying to do some good. The Government seem to have stalled on social value since then. If we can improve the methodology for calculating social value and properly embed it in procurement and subsidy schemes, every pound spent by the public sector will have a much greater benefit for our communities. It will help to tackle deprivation, benefit the environment and create flourishing local authorities. I hope the Minister can explain what the Government are doing to advance the social value agenda.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 25A in my name. I shall not speak to any other amendments, because to some extent I am here as an amateur among experts. I have one point to make, which I hope I can do quite quickly. However, I support the general trend from my noble friend’s introduction and other noble Lords who have spoken.

I was unable to speak at Second Reading, because if I had I would have missed the sleeper to Cornwall, which I have to take. I am sorry about that. Many questions that come up are about how and what can replace the different bits of the EU competition regime. I got to know it quite well and got either to like or love it but at least to deal with it. My amendment covers everything that I think are subsidies, although when one looks at the definition of subsidies in the Bill it is unclear whether it covers a one-off payment or a series of payments or even what in the transport world is called the public service obligation. Perhaps somebody will refer me to where I have got it wrong in that instance.

In all these things, there seems to be nothing in the Bill about whether any particular subsidy, whatever anybody is talking about, is value for money or whether it has gone through the government procurement rules, which, in simple terms, means that it has gone out for three quotes or something like that. There may be many instances where that is not appropriate. I worry about whether this is just giving a blank cheque to Ministers or any local authority that chooses without any of the checks and balances. It may go to the CMA in the end, but to start with it is not there. This afternoon, we have been debating the PPE issue. I am not suggesting that was about the urgency for procurement. On the other hand, the urgency has long since passed, and that leaves a nasty taste in some people’s mouths.

My other reason for raising this is that I have been involved in a levelling-up plan for a ferry to the Isles of Scilly, which some noble Lords know about. The local authority applied for £48 million from the levelling-up fund to be given to one private company without any tendering. The noble Baroness, Lady Vere, has been very helpful and has tried to put my mind at rest that government procurement rules will be looked at here. However, there are two issues. I think they apply to many procurement issues that come into the category of subsidy control.

The first is: should it be given at all, and has the amount applied for been properly calculated? Has the authority gone out for competitive tenders or can it demonstrate that it is value for money? Secondly—this is often more difficult—is there a better way of doing it? I have given the example of Scilly, where a better way would be to do it with one ferry rather than two, for half the price. That is not part of a levelling-up application. On the other hand, somebody should be looking at things like this to make sure that the Government, or the taxpayer, are getting value for money.

That could apply to many projects which noble Lords have mentioned on levelling up, including no doubt the railway projects in the regions which my noble friend talked about. It would help me to understand whether there is any check in the Bill involving value for money and going out to competitive tendering, or not, to demonstrate that that has been done before a decision is taken to go ahead.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 165 in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. We are grouped together with Amendment 159 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I think we are both looking for the same thing, which is a review of road traffic offences, which we discussed a little earlier this evening. It seems that the time has come to put a time limit on this. We suggest two years from the date of the Bill’s enactment.

As I mentioned earlier, this started in 2014. In 2015-16, the Commons Transport Committee reported with an inquiry on road traffic law enforcement, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking reported in 2017, with an inquiry on cycling and the justice system, and in 2018 there was a Westminster Hall debate on road justice and the legal framework, which revealed a cross-party consensus on the need for wide-ranging reforms. Many of the amendments we have discussed tonight demonstrate the need for reform but also the very wide range, scope and potential, and to some extent the differing opinions, which is of course quite normal.

In addition to the groups I have mentioned, there needs to be discussion not just with road safety and road user groups but with representatives of the police, the legal professions and local authorities. It is interesting to reflect that, seven years on from 2014, we could have had that debate by now and we could be passing laws that would save lives by taking the most dangerous drivers off the road.

I hope I can persuade Ministers that there is time for such a review now. I suspect we will be told that there are no current plans. However, the amendments which we and other people have tabled to Part 5 indicate that a review is needed. I suggest that it is time to address the awful additional pain and deaths that so many people have suffered as a result of the failure to review and change the law, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I think we have made the point that there is a huge inconsistency between road traffic offences and other offences causing injury and death. The penalties are simply not similar in any way.

Many years ago, when I first started getting interested in traffic crime, I went out several times with the traffic police and saw a number of investigations and crashes. At the time, I was told about some incidents that had happened and the sentences that the drivers had got, and these were horrific crashes. A police sergeant working there said to me that if he wanted to kill somebody, he would use his car. He would either get off scot free or would get a minimal sentence because, finally, you can always claim that it is an accident.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am sorry, but I am going to speak on this if the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not going to.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

No.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I feel very strongly about this. It offends my sense of justice that people who do hit and runs never pay for their crime. They are a menace to society, with only six months’ maximum sentence for leaving someone for dead having hit them with a car and, of course, the figures are going up year after year—

Environment Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Report stage
Monday 6th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is making a very important speech; I will just add to what she has said. In addition, the Mayor of London covered up the monitoring stations on the roads leading to the Olympics. Otherwise, the pollution would have been worse than it had been in Beijing four years previously.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

But he did put potted plants there; let us give him some credit.

Amendment 54 is also incredibly important, because it would achieve three important outcomes. First of all, it would put health at the heart of government policy-making. I am an ex-Southwark councillor, like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. On the old town hall, there was a translated Latin quotation:

“The health of the people is the highest law”.


That is what this Government absolutely ignore.

Secondly, Amendment 54 would ensure that air quality targets are based on WHO air quality guidelines and achieved as soon as possible. Thirdly, it would ensure that air pollution is properly monitored, particularly where it is a problem, and that people are warned about it.

Please understand that this is a public health crisis. I have tried to get the issue of air pollution into other Bills, but I was always put off and told that whatever Bill it was was not the right Bill to put air pollution in. When we are talking environment, this is the Bill to add air pollution as a serious issue.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, this amendment is about bus safety. I would like to think that it is so sensible that it will be accepted. Statistics released by the Department for Transport show that 5,381 collisions of buses and coaches were recorded last year, of which 64 resulted in fatalities and 638 in serious injuries. This amendment would help to address this worrying safety record by requiring all bus operators to subscribe to CIRAS, the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System, and for bus operators and their contracting local authorities to collect and publish casualty data for public scrutiny every quarter.

CIRAS is standard across the rail industry and began in 1996, when a team from Strathclyde University was asked to introduce a confidential reporting system for UK rail company ScotRail. It allows employees to report any health, safety, security and environmental concerns they might have. All employee information is kept confidential. Introducing CIRAS to the bus network would give employees an extra way of reporting any concerns, complementing the proven methods that are already in place for reporting and investigating incidents. Under huge pressure from one campaigner who was a victim of a bus crash, Tom Kearney, and with a little help from Green Party elected people, Transport for London adopted this policy on 31 July last year and subsequently incorporated it into its bus safety plan, published on 1 February this year. Due to the bus safety reporting practices we won in London, the Department for Transport has confirmed to us that we know the names of the bus operators involved in only 14 of those 64 fatal bus collisions; that is 22%.

According to a report published by CIRAS in July, since going live in January 2016, safety reports from TfL bus employees constituted 25% of all safety reports during the first half of the year. Since TfL bus operators are fewer than 2% of CIRAS members nationwide, that is a key indicator of the desire for bus sector employees to be proactive in reporting their operational safety concerns. It also means that the DfT has no idea which operators were involved in well over 5,000 bus collisions and 50 deaths last year. TfL knows every single one in over 27,000.

Operators in London carry more than half the passenger journeys in England and, including their services outside London, account for more than 80% of the market. Those operators already subscribe to the CIRAS scheme and will not incur any further cost as a result of the amendment. The cost to other operators of subscribing will be negligible: between £300 and £25,000 per annum depending on turnover and representing no more than 0.03% of their turnover. The amendment would also require operators to collect bus casualty data and provide it to the applicable authority. It would require those authorities to publish quarterly casualty data on their websites.

I am sure noble Lords know this already, but a death on the roads comes to nearly £2 million when the entire cost to public services is taken into account. Money could be saved massively, not only for the NHS, but also for councils and others who have to provide social services to bereaved families. Since 2014, Transport for London has provided more transparency for the public on both the extent of the problems and the very varied safety records of different operators. There is also a slightly concerning fact that this amendment could represent the only language in the Bill that addresses the operational safety performance of the bus services covered by this landmark legislation.

As has already been proven in the air, maritime and rail industries, public reporting and scrutiny of operator safety performance and access to confidential and independent incident reporting can do much to catalyse the formation of a self-reinforcing safety culture within companies. I believe that the amendment represents a proportionate measure to improve bus safety, learning from the progress made in the rail industry and in the bus market in London. I hope that the Government will support the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much support this amendment. My noble friend has set out very clearly why it is necessary. It is useful to reflect on the continuing difference in the way road and rail accidents and injuries are considered. I recall a few years ago when the Government were forming Highways England—I think that is the name of it now—several of us tabling an amendment which stated that the Office of Rail and Road, as it became, should be responsible for road safety. It was soundly rejected by the Government because it would have shown up just how unsafe the roads were, are and probably will be in the future.

I think my noble friend said that were 64 fatal bus collisions; I cannot remember whether it was last year or in a year. That compares with none on the railways, or maybe one in some years. Yet nobody even seems to think the subject worth collecting statistics on. She mentioned £2 million for every fatality, which is a figure that has long been used in the transport industry, be it in rail or road. It usually means that if the cause of the fatality can be identified and avoided from happening again for less than £2 million, you would spend the money on it, and if it was more than that you might not. If the value is the same, one’s only conclusion can be that the Government think that the value of a bus passenger’s life is less than the value of a rail passenger’s life when they die in a bus accident. This is a very dangerous situation to get into. We are not going to have an Office of Rail and Road looking after road safety tonight, but this amendment is a very good start to a debate that will probably go on for many years. I fully support it.