International Road Passenger Transport (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Rosser

Monday 20th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of these regulations, which seek to ensure that current access rights for EU bus and coach operators, into and within Northern Ireland, remain in place after our withdrawal from the EU. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended an upgrade of these regulations to the affirmative procedure.

This SI applies to the access rights of bus and coach operators, which is a transferred matter for Northern Ireland. The EU regulations currently provide reciprocal liberalised market access for regular and occasional coach services between the UK and the European Union. Apparently, reciprocal rights for UK operators in the EU market cannot be guaranteed after a withdrawal from the EU so, as the Minister has said, we will join the Interbus agreement as a contracting party in our own right if we leave the EU without an agreement.

The Interbus agreement is a multilateral agreement between the EU and seven other contracting parties in eastern Europe, which currently allows occasional international coach travel for tours and trips between those parties. As the Minister has said, since the Interbus agreement does not cover scheduled coach services, including those that take passengers to school or work, the European Union has agreed temporary contingency measures to enable operators licensed by the UK to carry passengers between the UK and an EU member state, if the withdrawal agreement is not adopted before we leave the EU. These temporary measures would enable scheduled services delivered by UK operators in the EU to continue until the end of this year. The Interbus agreement does not cover cabotage services, but the temporary agreement with the EU will allow UK operators some cabotage operations in the border regions of Ireland until 30 September of this year, as the Minister has said.

In its report, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that the scope of Interbus is being extended to cover scheduled services, which the Minister confirmed. However, if this extension is not agreed, the Northern Ireland Administration will look to negotiate an extension with the EU or seek to put in place bilateral arrangements with specific countries to secure the access needed to keep UK passenger transport operators moving. That is potentially a little vague about what might happen in the future. The report says that, in respect of cabotage, the Northern Ireland Administration,

“will continue to work … with the European Commission and the Republic of Ireland to ensure that any future UK-EU transport arrangements take into account the unique transport demands on the island of Ireland”.

That could, once again, be regarded as a statement of hope or as something that will definitely be delivered, so I have one or two questions.

What exactly are the extent and scope of the limited cabotage arrangements that will continue until the end of September in the border regions of Ireland? What will the practical impact and consequences be if those arrangements cease to have effect from the end of September? What are the prospects of the Interbus agreement being extended to cover scheduled services before the end of this year? Again, what will the practical impact and consequences be if the agreement is not so extended by the end of this year? Presumably the date of 31 December 2019 does not have the same urgency for the other signatories as it could have for us.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords I have one question for the Minister, following on from my noble friend’s more detailed questions about what will happen after 31 December 2019. It is all set out in paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Apart from asking what happens after 31 December, as my noble friend did, I note that:

“The EU have agreed a legislative measure that will allow UK operators currently running regular and special regular services to the EU to continue doing so until 31 December 2019”.


My question concerns the word “currently”. If an operator wishes to start a new service this year, they will presumably not be allowed to, because they are not doing so currently. If this legislation continues with the same wording, they will not be able to do so in future. That looks to me to be starting to create a kind of monopoly of existing operators, because new ones will not be able to do it unless they are operating currently. I hope that the Minister can put my mind at rest and say that this does not actually mean that no new ones could start and that it is just a quick and easy way of expressing what might happen—but it is a worry, because at the moment any operator should be able to operate across the frontier, and let us hope that that can continue in the future.

Transport Act 1985 (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Rosser

Monday 20th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness outlined the problem with this piece of legislation extremely well. My first question for the Minister is: why are we doing this at all? As the noble Baroness suggested, we might have left the EU on 29 March without any agreement, so it is a bit odd that the Government should be bringing this regulation through your Lordships’ House two months later, still trying to comply with European Union legislation. Since we still do not know whether we will leave, and if so when, presumably another regulation will be coming shortly that will explain how this particular regulation will be amended or removed if we leave—perhaps the Minister can clarify this. Or do the Government think that this regulation is so wonderful that they will want to keep it?

I see nothing wonderful about this at all. As the noble Baroness said, it is just more bureaucracy in a sector which, by definition, cannot afford it—and sometimes cannot even afford to run the bus. I live in a little village in Cornwall which has a community bus once or twice a week. It takes people to the shops, other villages or the hospital and is run by a dedicated team of two drivers. Occasionally they have to put their hands into other people’s pockets for more money to upgrade the bus and so on. It is run on a shoestring. The people whom it carries on the whole cannot afford very much anyway, and here we are adding more bureaucracy—for no point at all that I can see.

If this is being pushed forward by the Government after pressure from the commercial bus operators, I would ask how many of the routes currently run by community services would ever be run commercially. The answer in most cases is that you either have a community bus service—if you are lucky—or no buses at all. Given the reduction in bus services that this Government and the previous one have “achieved”, it is a pretty depressing story. I cannot understand why the Government want to do this at all. I hope the Minister will be able to explain that to the House, as well as what will happen if we leave without an agreement at the end of October or whenever. Will the Government seek to bring in another regulation to remove this SI and go back to where we were?

It may be that the European Commission has been doing good things and requires this to be done, but, frankly, if it was so important, why has it taken until May 2019 to bring this forward? It will be a disaster for the community transport sector. As the noble Baroness suggested, the sooner we get some guidance to interpret what is in here, and a sensible, achievable objective so that the services can continue and maybe even grow, the better. It would be really good if that could happen, so I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we support the terms of the regret Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. These regulations were the subject of a fairly lengthy report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee at the beginning of April. The committee drew them to the special attention of the House on the grounds that, given their potential impact on community transport operators, they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.

As the noble Baroness said, the regulations are being made to align fully, and clarify, the relationship between an EU regulation and the Transport Act 1985. That Act provides for exemptions which allow certain types of organisation to operate passenger transport services on a not-for-profit basis without holding a public service vehicle operator’s licence, following the issue of a permit.

There is also an EU regulation, which I think was implemented in 2011, setting the standards to be applied to public service vehicle licence holders. However, operators are exempt from the EU regulation requirements if they operate exclusively for non-commercial purposes or have a main occupation that is not as a road passenger transport operator, and if they only operate domestically and have a minor impact on the transport market because of short driving distances. The view of the Department for Transport has been that its permit holders automatically meet the “non-commercial” exemption from the EU regulation on the basis that “not-for-profit” equates to “non-commercial”. This has now been challenged on the basis that some organisations operating under the permit system are in fact operating for commercial purposes. At the end of last year, the Bus and Coach Association applied to the High Court for permission to judicially review the Department for Transport’s current position in respect of community transport, and in particular the approach to the non-commercial exemption.

Aviation Security (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Rosser

Monday 25th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very interesting SI, in particular the issue of confidentiality. This has come up again and again in not just the secondary but also the primary legislation. I know for a fact that people in the industries that I am in touch with say, “We have signed non-disclosure agreements, so we can’t tell you anything”, which is fine because it means they have to do what the Government say; they have no other information and no means of questioning it. More importantly, I need to ask the Minister how long these NDAs are going to go on for. As the noble Baroness said, once you have “security” in there and everything is confidential, getting that removed is almost impossible because there will always be 25 reasons for not doing it. That applies to NDAs and, even more important, to this legislation. We might just as well sit back and say, “Well, you didn’t tell us about it. Of course we trust you; you’re the best security in the world until something goes wrong”. Whether we believe that is a different matter, but there is nothing we can do about it.

My second point concerns Regulation 16, which the noble Baroness mentioned, about removing the power of the Civil Aviation Authority to grant operating licences to UK-registered air carriers. Why can the CAA not continue to do this? After all, it is a UK government body with the expertise—probably unlike the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I would go one step further and say we can still leave the EU and not have any input into the decision-making processes that go on—if that is what is going to happen—but is there any reason why we should not have the back-to-back arrangements with member states on operating licences with the CAA on mutual recognition? What is wrong with that, apart from the fact that Ministers do not want to do it? The Minister shakes her head, but technically it would make life a great deal easier. It seems to me that it should be looked at. I do not think any noble Lords will oppose this SI tonight—it is a bit late now—but this is something we ought to be thinking about and challenging. On many of these SIs coming up, including railway ones next week, the decision has been made but actually has nothing to do with the basic principle of leaving the EU. It is somebody’s interpretation of it to suit their own political ends or whatever. It is worth reflecting on that. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

First of all, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this SI. I struggled to understand it, and I suppose it must be of some comfort to know that at least one Member of your Lordships’ House—namely, the Minister—does understand it. Basically, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, EU law,

“sets out the baseline aviation security standards”,

applicable in the UK. As I understand it, the purpose of the SI in front of us is to ensure that,

“the legal framework has the same practical effect”,

after we have left the European Union. It says:

“Regulation 300/2008 and a number of the related EU instruments are being retained in United Kingdom law by virtue of the Withdrawal Act”.


Consequently, the instrument,

“keeps the effect of the regulatory framework the same in practice”.

I too have a number of questions, and I have to say they are suspiciously similar to those that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has already asked. I too refer to paragraph 6.4 and raise the same point that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised. It says:

“In doing so, this instrument makes provision in relation to powers in Regulation 300/2008 (e.g. to amend detailed aviation security requirements) so as to confer these powers on the Secretary of State. In certain cases, the exercise of these powers is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure where it is considered that greater Parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate”.


So we are talking about something of some significance: detailed aviation security requirements. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I would like to know how the decision will be made as to whether it should be the affirmative resolution procedure or the negative procedure. Perhaps the Minister could give some examples of amendments to detailed aviation security requirements that might be made under the terms of Regulation 300/2008 and that would go through the process and the procedure mentioned in paragraph 6.4, so that we can get some feel for the kinds of matters that we as Parliament might be being asked to agree to or accept.

I too refer to paragraph 6.6, which contains this reference to “Commission Decision C(2015) 8005”. I think we get some assistance earlier on in the document in finding out the purpose of this decision. It says in paragraph 2.4 that the contents,

“are not published, by virtue of provision in Article 18 of Regulation 300/2008”.

It then states:

“The Decision prescribes detailed requirements which correspond to the detailed requirements set out in Regulation 2015/1998 but which, if published, would compromise the efficacy of the security measures applied at airports (e.g. the detailed specification of screening equipment or the minimum percentage of passengers required to undergo a particular form of screening)”.


As has already been said, we are told that the decision will therefore not be published on exit day in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the withdrawal Act, and for this reason cannot be the subject of provisions made under Section 8 of that Act.

Civil Aviation (Insurance) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the airline industry in this country is intensely competitive. It is a commercial environment where there is a real danger that airlines seeking to reduce costs will cut their insurance to the minimum in order to do so. It is obvious from this SI that freeing ourselves from EU standards means that we could allow airlines to have a lower level of insurance. The Minister read out an impressive but rather grim list of the risks that airlines face. Obviously those risks are also faced by their passengers and therefore I would be grateful if she could give some more detail about what restrictions will be put on airlines that are registered in Britain: how low can they go as regards their insurance cover?

It is obvious that the Government are anticipating a reduction because paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum makes it absolutely clear that this legislation will free airlines in the UK to take up lower levels of insurance cover than those required in the EU. It gives the example of “non-commercial operations”. As an aside, I would like to ask the Minister if she could define what the Government mean by that phrase. What sort of operations will need to have or will be allowed to have a lower level of cover? There is no point in freeing yourself up from EU controls if you are not going to allow variations from the standards that the EU has set. Will there be any guarantees of a minimum level of insurance cover or will we have some sort of free-for-all as a result of this? Air passengers will be concerned that there should always be an adequate level of cover.

I reiterate the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: exactly how will this work? I have been trying to envisage the process. Thank goodness that several of our airlines have decided that they will neutralise some of the risks of Brexit and life after Brexit by registering in other countries. That covers their risks, which is a very good thing for them to have done. However, airlines are often based in more than one country. They may have their headquarters in one country but have most of their aircraft based in another one. Of course they fly between countries, so who will set the level of insurance that is required on each occasion? Will it depend on their country of origin, the flight that day, or will it depend on where the airline’s headquarters are based? If our UK-based planes fly from the UK to an EU country, will they not have the right to demand that those planes have an EU level of cover, not the reduced cover that the Government seem to envisage would be possible?

Finally, I put a rather prosaic point to the Minister. Paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The territorial application of this instrument includes Scotland and Northern Ireland”.


What has happened to Wales, which has more than one airport? Can I ask for an assurance that the Scottish Government—sadly I cannot ask about Northern Ireland at this moment—have expressed their agreement to the concepts behind this SI and that the Welsh Government have done so as well, particularly since they do not seem to have been mentioned?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I also thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the regulations before us. Perhaps I may pursue the point that has been made about paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to clarify what it means—or at least to establish that what I think it means is correct. It states:

“Article 6 sets out levels of insurance in respect of liability for passengers, baggage and cargo. Under Article 6(1), the minimum insurance cover for liability in respect of passengers is set at 250,000 SDRs per passenger”.


Can I take it that, as far as these regulations are concerned, there is no change and that the minimum insurance cover which applies at the moment will continue to be applied in the future and not be reduced? The memorandum continues:

“For non-commercial operations by aircraft with a MTOM of 2,700kg or less, there is an option for Member States to set a lower level of minimum insurance cover”—


I take it that that is the present situation with us being within the EU and that we already have the option because the memorandum says—

“which the United Kingdom has chosen to exercise. To ensure that the flexibility provided for in Article 6(1) is retained, Article 6(1) is amended to include a provision for the Secretary of State, by regulations, to set a lower level of minimum insurance cover in respect of non-commercial operations by aircraft with a MTOM of 2,700kg”.

Does the Secretary of State intend to go to a lower level of minimum insurance requirement than we have already exercised under what I understand is provided for under the existing arrangements? It is clear from looking at it that the Secretary of State could take the first opportunity to reduce it even further. What are the advantages of having the lower level of minimum insurance cover that the Secretary of State may set by regulations? To whose advantage is it? Is it safer to have a lower level of minimum insurance cover? It would be helpful to know what the advantages are and whether the Secretary of State intends to lower the level even further than I presume we have already reached.

[Lord Berkeley]

Will my noble friend clarify his thinking on non-commercial operations of aircraft with a minimum take-off or landing weight of 2,700 kilograms? That covers small private planes. Does he agree that it would be quite difficult if those private planes had such a small amount of insurance cover that anybody who might be affected by anything they did could be seriously out of pocket?

[Lord Rosser]

That would seem to be one issue, but I was posing the question to the Minister with no particular objective in mind other than simply to find out the thinking behind it, given that we have already moved to a lower level of minimum insurance cover than would have applied if we had not exercised the option. At the moment, I genuinely do not know what the thinking behind it is, to whom it is considered advantageous and whether there are any downsides. That is the point of my question and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to it.

The Minister referred to international treaties. Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Article 6(5) sets out that the values referred to in Article 6 may be amended if required because of changes to international treaties … Article 7(2) sets out that the values referred to in Article 7(1) may be amended where it is required as a result of changes to international treaties, and this is amended to enable the Secretary of State, by regulations, to amend the values in Article 7”.


I think that the Minister has already said this, but I would like an assurance that those changes will be made only in response to changes in international treaties and that the Secretary of State will not use this instrument to make changes that are not required under international treaties.

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Rosser

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I think I have some good news. I pay tribute the Select Committee’s work on this. I know that it tried very hard and quizzed lots of people as to how it could be done. As is so often the case, when it gets to the stage of involving contractors, sometimes contractors have good ideas. I was talking to some of them and their specialists last week. One of the key ideas is if you bore tunnels from Old Oak Common to Euston and you complete at least one at any early stage, you can take the spoil out through the tunnel. This is a very good idea because you can then deal with it at Old Oak Common. I am told it is possible; they are trying to work it into the programme. If it is possible, the figure for getting spoil and demolition out would probably go up to above 50%—I was told 70% or 80%—which is really good news. In other words, they have come up with some creative ideas. Maybe we were wrong to criticise HS2 in the past for not coming up with such ideas. It has given us a lot of debating time and the committee several days of discussion, but at least people have come up with a good idea. I think four contractors are tendering and I do not know whether they will all adopt this, but it demonstrates that it is possible. I hope Ministers will do all they can to encourage the contractors to be similarly creative.

There is another issue. In Committee we discussed concreting materials and other materials. The present amendment covers just concreting materials. The creative people are now saying, quite rightly, that they cannot bring cement in by train because it takes too long to unload, but that they can bring in most of the concreting aggregate by train and they can put a batching plant for mixing it somewhere on site. I am sure the committee looked at different locations for that; I have, and it is possible. As the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks, there is not a capacity problem for these trains going into Euston at night. It could easily be done.

I hope the Minister will accept these amendments as pointing the way forward to encouraging HS2 to continue to be creative like this. We do not want 1,500 trucks a day in Camden because the construction will last for 19 years—not that all those trucks will be there for 19 years, but they will still there be there for a considerable period. The basic movement out of spoil and demolition material by rail and bringing in concreting aggregate by rail would make a lot of people happy. I am convinced that the project can be done on that basis without any adverse effect on its programme or cost. If it is set up to do that, the contractors will do it well and it will work well.

[Lord Rosser]

As has been said, the amendment calls for a plan to be published for each construction site in the Euston area to show how the number of lorries delivering to or from the site could be limited to meet laid-down restrictions by the weight of materials transported by road, with the remainder being carried by rail. As has been said, this is an issue to which the Lords Select Committee, on which the three main parties and the Cross Benches were represented, gave consideration. The committee said in paragraph 411 of its report:

“We are very strongly of the opinion that as much material as possible should be moved by rail, so as to reduce road traffic congestion and air pollution. However, we are convinced by the evidence that this aim will be significantly more difficult to achieve at Euston, as compared with most of the other projects referred to by Mr Dyer and Lord Berkeley. We are satisfied that HS2 is taking this responsibility seriously, and we are hopeful that significant progress will be made as the time comes for contractors to be appointed and become involved in the detailed planning. In the meantime we see no useful purpose to be served by attempting to set fixed targets. It would be little more than plucking aspirational figures out of the air”.


We do not diverge from the position of the Select Committee. Since it is also our view as much material as possible should be moved by rail, we will not vote against the amendment if it is put to the vote. Indeed, we want to see the “significant progress” made with contractors to which the Select Committee referred in its report.

The amendment does not indicate what should happen once the plan has been published. The plan would be required to set out how the number of lorries could be limited to deliver the restrictions on movement referred to. Presumably, this would be without any detailed reference to costs or any other potential implications. Frankly, rather than the terms of the amendment, with what the Select Committee might or might not regard as its aspirational figures, surely what is required to deliver for the citizens of Camden is a firm commitment from the Government to hold HS2 to the undertaking it has given to maximise the movement of materials by rail, including in the Euston area, despite the difficulties referred to by the Select Committee, with a view to its going well beyond the guaranteed baseline for moving materials by rail of 28% of excavated soil and 17% of imported construction materials. Paragraph 117 of the promoter’s response to the Select Committee’s special report says:

“The Promoter reiterates its overarching commitment to continue to seek to maximise, as far as reasonably practicable, the amount of material that can be moved by rail, and the underlying commitments it has given the London Borough of Camden”.


I hope the Minister will address this point about how the Government intend to ensure that maximising the movement of materials by rail is delivered.

High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Rosser

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 12th January 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

In part, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, relates to an issue I have asked about previously, which is also contained in the Select Committee’s report on page 97, on permanent or temporary land take. Certainly, the Country Land and Business Association, for example, believes that HS2 is seeking powers to take land permanently which it needs only temporarily, and that this is leading to a highly unsatisfactory situation. I would be grateful if the Minister can reconfirm what I believe he has already said, that when the Government come to respond to the Select Committee’s report, they will address what the Select Committee had to say on the issue of permanent or temporary land take, on pages 97 to 99 of that report. It may well be that, in the light of what the Government have to say, an amendment on this issue will need to be pursued on Report. Therefore, I want that assurance that those paragraphs which the Select Committee included on permanent or temporary land take will be commented on in the Government’s reply.

I appreciate that I am stretching things a bit in raising this, but the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, asked a question earlier about the moving of the portals of the tunnel at Euston. I too have had an email which said that there is a suggestion that staff at HS2 Ltd have indicated that consideration is being given to moving the portals of the tunnel from which the proposed high speed line will emerge to the west of Euston station, about one kilometre nearer to the station. Can the Minister say whether that is correct and whether consideration is being given to this?

[Lord Berkeley]

To add to that, I have also heard that same rumour from some of the local residents. It is particularly unfortunate if we hear stories like that from residents and we cannot get the answer from Ministers, so I am sure that the Minister will do his best to respond.

On the compulsory purchase and compensation side, I have heard allegations that some of the land subject to compulsory purchase in the Old Oak Common area will be allocated or transferred to a separate company—many of the directors of HS2 seem also to be on its board—and then used for, shall we say, non-railway purposes. Surely compulsory purchase for railway schemes is designed for railway purposes, but if this is to be used for other purposes, it begs a lot of questions as to whether that is an appropriate methodology. If the Minister cannot answer that this afternoon, I am sure he could write to me, if that will be possible.

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Rosser

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Lords & Report stage: House of Lords
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I follow my noble friend’s example. While I fully support her wish to have woodland preserved, I do not know much about it. I think it is a very good idea and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I hope that it will be in the response next week. However, I have problems with Amendment 15. Overhead power lines for railways are a necessary part of making the trains run, unless you use diesels. Diesels are not only polluting, they are very heavy and they do not really like going as fast as is planned for HS2.

Noble Lords may be aware that when the east coast main line was electrified—before my day, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Snape, was around then—it was done on the cheap and the wires do come down with depressing regularity. Network Rail, in electrifying the Great Western, have therefore gone to the opposite extreme and put up some pretty hefty towers, supported on piles in the ground, and the wires will be so strong that they will probably resist a good hurricane. But then the people of Bath said that they did not want wires on the railway going past the beautiful city of Bath. When Bath was built, there was not a railway, was there? But a railway was put through it so that the good people of Bath could get to Bristol and London and other places. They did not want a catenary at all; they wanted a third rail because you would not see it. It would have cost billions to develop a special train to go just there so you would not see the wires. The later idea was that the people of Goring, somewhere between Didcot and Reading, did not like the look of these posts and so they are taking legal action, I believe, against Network Rail to have the posts redesigned.

If we want to move around in a modern way, we need electric wires to move the trains. The further apart you put the posts, the more the wires are likely to come down when there is any wind. There has to be a compromise. Yes, we have railways going through AONBs and other places but if you go to places such as the Swiss Alps, the Austrian Alps or other beautiful parts of the continent, all the lines are electrified and the wires just blend in with the rest of the infrastructure. I would strongly resist HS2 being told to have special architect-designed posts for a particular area. It will not work. It will cost an enormous amount of money. These things will fit in with the surroundings quite well. Frankly, when 40% of the line is in a tunnel anyway, you are not going to have too many posts around to look at.

[Lord Rosser]

I want to make just one or two comments about Amendment 28, to which my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone has spoken. Obviously, I am aware of the comments that have been made by the Select Committee, which was not, let us say, fully enamoured of the report by Natural England. Equally, as I understand it, it was a report that Natural England was asked to produce in relation to this issue. As my noble friend has said, it has made its recommendations. The Select Committee took the view that it did not feel the reference to a scale of 30:1 was evidence-based. Before I go any further, I accept that I was not a member of the committee and therefore do not know everything that was said when evidence was taken. I do not doubt in that sense that the committee had good reason for making the point it has.

I hope the Government will look sympathetically on the amendment. Certainly, I, too, wish to hear what their response is to the report and the review by Natural England. If their view is that they do not feel they can go down the road of that report, I hope they will set out very clearly what their reasons are and perhaps whether they have alternative propositions to those that have been made. I hope the response will be, at least in large measure if not in its entirety, that they would be willing to accept what was in the report that Natural England was asked to prepare.

Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Rosser

Friday 1st February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I do not intend to repeat what I said at Second Reading, or what I said on my earlier amendment, as we have had a good debate on the issue in Clause 2. My concern remains only with the inclusion in the clause of the phrase “deck officer” without a definition of the qualifications and experience of a deck officer and a recognition of the importance of being high up in the management tree of the ship.

My noble friend mentioned junior ratings. With his knowledge and experience, I am sure that he has a good point but I feel that nowadays, and in line with the EU regulations that we talked about earlier, it is important to have a definition of who can and cannot be given a PEC as a deck officer. It is very easy to say that a competent harbour authority will not give someone a PEC unless he is qualified, but it is like so many of these things—on a good day, when everything is going well, it will work out all right, but, sadly, we have all had experience of when things do not go quite right and sometimes a harbour authority is less competent than it might be. Where two ports are sited reasonably close together and are competing for trade, there must be a temptation for one of them to offer a PEC to somebody on a particular shipping line if that will attract the ship into that port and bring in probably much needed revenue. I would like to try to persuade the Minister to be as generous as he can in giving a tighter definition to the meaning of “deck officer” as applied in this Bill. If it can be related to the IMO deck officer that we discussed earlier, that would tie everything together and would probably also reduce the number of future court cases, which we all wish to avoid.

I could go on for a lot longer. I do not want to delay things too much and I still want to see this Bill pass. However, it would be very helpful if the Minister could give an assurance on that issue and then we can move on. My other concerns about the Bill are very small compared with that one.

[Lord Rosser]

I repeat what we said at Second Reading. We support the Bill and want it to succeed, not least because many of its provisions were contained in a draft Bill that we produced when we were in government. However, I am not sure that the Government are being as helpful as they might be as regards some of the detail. Clearly, the most contentious issue is that of the exemption certificate. My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the definition of “deck officer”.

I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a reply to a number of questions that I asked at Second Reading. I was given the letter—dated yesterday—only this morning. I have had a look at it although, obviously, not as long a look as I might have wished. However, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for the reply and for responding to the points that I made in our previous debate. The Minister has given a definition of “deck officer” in that letter and said that it enjoys the dictionary definition of,

“an officer in charge of the above-deck workings and manoeuvres at sea of a ship or boat”.

However, I do not think that that definition covers the issue of the minimum level of experience for,

“an officer in charge of the above-deck workings and manoeuvres at sea of a ship or boat”,

particularly as regards the pilotage operation. This comes back to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley on the standard of experience that is to be required. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister, when he responds, could give an assurance on that point.

I also asked about the role of the competent harbour authorities. The Minister said in his reply:

“It is a matter for Competent Harbour Authorities to decide who has the skill, experience and local knowledge sufficient to be capable of piloting the ship, and for shipping operators to develop and implement a Safety Management System to provide clarity on the roles and responsibilities of the bridge team when a Pilotage Exemption Certificate holder is acting as a pilot”.

Saying that it is a matter for the competent harbour authorities to decide who has the skill, experience and local knowledge does not address in particularly clear terms how much training it would take to obtain a pilotage exemption certificate in a place such as Liverpool.