Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, airport slots are permissions that allow airlines to take off and land at specific dates and times. They are a valuable resource at capacity-constrained airports. The UK currently has nine such airports, including the main five London airports—Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton and Stansted—as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Bradford and Manchester.
These regulations are necessary in the context of the continuing conflict in the Middle East, which is creating disruption and uncertainty for the aviation sector and therefore for airline passengers. The Government have therefore designed a hand-back measure for slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons, which will allow airlines to return up to 10% of their slots, if necessary, without losing the right to those same slots the following year.
The use of this hand-back does not need to link to fuel shortage, because there is no fuel shortage at present, as UK airlines have stated. However, the impact of the continuing conflict in the Middle East is more nuanced and wide-ranging. Airlines are facing longer flight paths, increased fuel costs and, in some cases, shifting passenger demand, particularly on routes affected by regional instability. These regulations provide flexibility to manage genuine operational challenges and reduce the risk of last-minute cancellations. There is therefore a need for intervention.
The developments in the Middle East remain unpredictable and continue to put undue pressure on the aviation sector. These pressures are completely outside the control of airlines, but are nevertheless having an impact on their ability to operate as planned. Without intervention, airlines would not be able to respond to known risks to their operations and passengers would be exposed to last-minute cancellations and disruption at the departure gates. These regulations respond directly to the uncertainty and operational impact of the Middle East conflict by providing limited, targeted flexibility, while maintaining the overall integrity of the slot allocation system.
The statutory instrument allows airlines to hand back up to 10% of their allocated slots at slot co-ordinated airports across the UK. These are the UK’s busiest and most capacity-constrained airports, where demand for take-off and landing times is greater than the available capacity. As I said, the regulations apply for the summer and winter 2026 scheduling seasons. Airlines will be able to hand back up to 10% of their slots without losing their historic entitlement to these slots in the following equivalent season.
This 10% flexibility is split into two stages. Airlines may return up to 5% of their slots by a specified date in each season and a further 5% throughout the remainder of the season. To return slots under these regulations, airlines must give passengers at least 14 days’ notice if a flight is cancelled. This approach strikes a careful balance. It provides airlines with some flexibility to adjust their schedules to mitigate impacts of the conflict in the Middle East, while keeping passenger protections at the forefront. Importantly, the measure is time-limited, because it applies only to the summer and winter 2026 seasons, ensuring a proportionate response to current circumstances.
The regulations also allow returned slots to be reallocated where possible. This helps to ensure that valuable airport capacity is not left unused if the situation in the Middle East were to take a definitive positive turn. It also enables airlines that are less exposed to wider impacts of the conflict in the Middle East to step in and make use of returned slots to meet passenger demand. The draft instrument being considered today applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Airports are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but there are currently no slot co-ordinated airports in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Government undertook a targeted consultation with airlines, airports and other sector stakeholders on our proposal for alleviation for the summer and winter 2026 seasons. The consultation received a total of 59 responses. There was strong support among airlines for the proposed slots hand-back provision, albeit that most wanted the hand-back threshold to be 20%. Airports were generally opposed to alleviation being granted and wanted a lower threshold for hand-back. The Government have therefore adopted a balanced position, providing a 10% hand-back for summer and winter 2026. This gives airlines enough room to manage a genuine operational challenge if it arises, while making sure that they cannot use it on cancellations that go well beyond what the situation requires.
Furthermore, in the light of the consultation, and airport responses in particular, we have ensured that slots that are handed back can be reallocated. This ensures that where airlines are able to make use of these slots, they can be picked up, so that valuable airport capacity is not wasted, striking an appropriate balance between flexibility for airlines and efficient use of airport infra- structure. During times of crisis or widespread destruction —for example, during Covid-19—the Government have stepped in to provide alleviation from slot usage requirements over and above the existing justified non-utilisation of slots provisions set out in the slots regulation. Most recently, in summer 2022, the Government implemented a 30% hand-back to stabilise airport operations and reduce disruption for passengers.
The Government are grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of this instrument. I will now address the comments that it raised. The 10% hand-back provision was consulted on and a range of views was received. While many airlines argued for a higher threshold, no substantive evidence was provided. Ministers concluded that 10% represents an appropriate and proportionate balance supported by the available evidence.
On passenger impact, the 14-day notice period aligns with previous slot alleviation measures and, where airlines return slots, passengers are protected under UK law and are entitled to a refund or rerouting. Wider rights, including compensation in some cases, are set out in aviation consumer protection rules. The existing justified non-utilisation of slots regime—JNUS—is reactive and does not support forward planning, increasing the risk of late cancellations. This measure addresses this gap.
On the final points raised, the Government continue to monitor fuel supply closely and engage with industry, with UK airlines reporting no current shortages. Finally, the powers underpinning this instrument expire on 23 June 2026, under the retained EU law Act. Replacement powers are being sought through the civil aviation Bill and any future use will depend on the prevailing circumstances.
The policy intent behind these measures is clear: to support a resilient aviation sector while protecting passengers and the environment. First and foremost, they support better planning for passengers. By enabling airlines to adjust schedules in advance, passengers are more likely to receive early notice of cancellations, rather than facing last-minute disruption at the airport.
Noble Lords may be considering why the Government are acting now, before any acute or system-wide shortage of fuel has materialised. The answer is that this is a preventive, forward-looking measure. The disruption caused by the conflict in the Middle East is already affecting airline operations, costs and demand patterns. Waiting until those pressures result in widespread cancellations or operational instability would risk greater disruption to passengers and the sector. By acting now, the Government are enabling airlines to plan ahead, adjust schedules in an orderly way and provide passengers with meaningful notice of changes, rather than reacting at the last minute.
Secondly, these regulations reduce the risk of unnecessary flights. By removing the pressure to operate flights purely to retain slots, we expect fewer near-empty aircraft in the skies. This enables more efficient use of jet fuel stocks and aviation network capacity.
Thirdly, they help protect connectivity. Airport slots underpin route networks that have been built up over many years. Allowing airlines to retain their historic rights, despite temporary disruption, helps ensure that those connections can be restored once conditions stabilise.
Finally, these measures support the financial stability of airlines. Without them, if an airline was aware of issues that would make it difficult to operate a flight, it would face a choice between continuing with plans to run it anyway or cancelling it at the last minute and potentially losing that slot at the airport permanently.
To close, these regulations represent a practical, proportionate response to a specific and challenging set of circumstances. They maintain the integrity of the slot allocation system while introducing temporary flexibility to reflect real-world pressures. They support airlines, benefit passengers and help avoid unnecessary environmental harm. Above all, they are a measured intervention that is time-limited, targeted and grounded in the realities facing the aviation sector today. I hope that noble Lords will recognise the balance that has been struck and will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a pilot, an honorary vice-president of BALPA, the pilots’ union, and a former director of an airport. I generally welcome these provisions but, of course, they are part of the assimilated law of the EU —quite conveniently so, in fact, in that we can make alterations of this kind to the slots system. I want to question the Minister a little on one or two aspects of this instrument.
As we know, and as is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, slots are a major asset of airlines. Sometimes, they are actually worth more than the whole of the rest of the airline put together, including its aircraft and all the rest. So they are enormously valuable. The allocation of slots is, therefore, a critical matter; of course, that also includes any slots that become available for reallocation.
The Minister referred to this being a temporary measure. I would like to get a confirmation from him. He said that it relates to the Middle East conflict, but he then spoke later about the jet fuel situation and so on. That is clearly a looming threat, I suppose, but it is not the main argument here. The main argument he is deploying is that the Middle East conflict means that a lot of airlines are no longer able to carry out their normal routes as they would like to do and that, consequently, the aim is to avoid the nonsense of having aircraft running without passengers, as it were, as has been the case in a number of instances.
Allowing airlines to have their slots put back and then used at a later date seems to make sense, except for the fact that, as I read it, the measure ultimately talks about a five-year term with a review. The Minister said that it is a short-term measure for 2026. Can he confirm to me that that is the case? Can he also confirm that the other element written in here somewhere—the five-year term and review—is not relevant to this point? I would be very grateful for some confirmation on that.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate ExcerptsTuesday 2nd June 2026
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I declare several interests in aviation, the first of which is as quite a long-term private pilot—but not, I am afraid, one now flying in the 21st-century glass cockpits referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus; I have to rely on 20th-century cockpits for my flying. I am the honorary vice-president of the British Airline Pilots Association, and I involve myself with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aviation. I am also a former director of Newcastle International Airport. My interest in aviation goes back a long way and is still very current.
In general, I welcome the Bill. It presents a considerable opportunity to modernise our aviation legislative frame- work and could help to position the United Kingdom as one of the world’s leading aviation markets, particularly in the light of the recently published aviation competitiveness index, which ranks the UK, disappointingly, only sixth out of the eight aviation markets it assessed.
I say so with one substantial qualification, which I imagine the Minister anticipates. Almost in its entirety, this Bill is an enabling measure; it creates no new passenger rights and reforms no single rule; it confers powers on the Secretary of State and the authorities to do those things later by regulation. In relation to other legislation, I have raised my concerns that so much is left for later decisions, often implemented without the full scrutiny that they might deserve at the time. It therefore remains to be seen how Ministers will utilise the new powers contained in this Bill to enable meaningful reform and improve aviation regulation for the benefit of consumers and airlines alike, because that is surely what we all desire.
To take the consumer provisions first, the inherited framework referred to before, Regulation UK 261, was drafted for a different era, and it now imposes liabilities on carriers well beyond anything its authors intended, covering passenger rights when flights are delayed and cancelled and when there is a denial of boarding. This regulation followed our leaving the EU so, although in general it follows the same matters as the similar EU regulation, it is enforced by our authorities, so we have the possibility of both EU and UK regimes applying to flights between the UK and Europe. In the Government’s discussions with their European counterparts, we could certainly benefit by trying to ensure some alignment at least in this international marketplace. The European Union, which wrote the original form of the regulation, has itself concluded that the thresholds no longer work, and its Council agreed last summer to lengthen the qualifying delay to four hours on short-haul flights and six hours on long-haul flights. The power in Clause 1 is an opportunity to bring clarity, not least to the vexed question of what amounts to so-called extraordinary circumstance, which sustains a small industry of litigation and serves passengers and airlines alike very poorly.
On the enforcement powers in Clause 2, I urge greater caution, for, by the authority’s own survey, passenger satisfaction stands at its highest recorded level. Powers of direct penalty should be reserved for genuine and systemic harm and exercised with proper process, and I shall be grateful to know what safeguards the Government intend to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary rigidity.
I come now to the part of the Bill closest to my own concerns as a pilot, on airspace. Ours is the most congested in the world. NATS handles a quarter of Europe’s traffic and barely a 10th of its airspace, yet the basic design has scarcely altered since the 1950s, when the country saw some 200,000 flights a year, against more than 2.5 million now. In 2019, I was asked by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation to undertake an inquiry into lower airspace, particularly because of the pressures on general aviation, and we came up with a number of proposals for change. We concluded, inter alia, that the methodology in which airspace design changes occur was antiquated and in need of radical reform, and called for the scrapping of legislation governing lower airspace design. I wonder if this legislation is at last going to encompass our findings. Could the Minister perhaps confirm it?
Modernisation is now very overdue, and the powers in Clause 4 to see airspace change actually implemented are sensible and necessary, but the new design service, the so-called single guiding mind, was promised to be operational by the end of last year—and I must ask, where is it? An assurance on a revised timetable would be helpful. I ask too that the smaller users of our skies, the gliders and the light aircraft, previously referred to by several speakers, including my noble friend Lord Davies, are not again quietly squeezed out, for they have as good a claim to the air as any airliner.
If we are to grow the aviation industry, with developments such as the third runway at Heathrow and capacity growth at many regional airports, we shall need to deal with the shortage of pilots to fly our aircraft. I am not persuaded that that supply can safely be left to the market alone, and I would ask whether the Government or the CAA might take an informed interest in the health of that workforce and encourage more to train for this role. The smaller private training schools need encouragement, not impediment. Of course, at the heart of this legislation will be full and ongoing consultation with professional pilots and their representative organisations to ensure that we adequately respond to the needs of the industry with a more flexible and dynamic system of training and recruitment.
Finally, I want to make a couple of points relating to NATS. First, may I press the Minister to clarify the proposals on charging for air traffic and navigation services? Those responsible to pay for those services, according to the Bill, is to change from
“owners and operators of aircraft”
to, simply, “persons”. General aviation is not, wisely, affected too much by the present arrangements, which apply largely to the airlines, and I would argue that the burden of such charges should remain as at present. Is this change more, perhaps, because of technological developments such as drone delivery systems? The Minister is nodding his head. Perhaps he could confirm that in his wind-up.
We need to protect general aviation for the future, but my second question relates to liability. When the air traffic control system failed in the summer of 2023, some 2,000 flights were cancelled and over 700,000 passengers disrupted, at a cost that the regulator has put at up to £100 million. The airlines met that bill in its totality. NATS, which we know is a profitable company that was at the very heart of the failures, paid absolutely nothing. The most that could be done was to embark on the clear complications of fining it, but with much lesser redress available. When a carrier causes the delay, it has to pay— without argument, it has to pay. When the monopoly air navigation provider causes it—guess what—the carrier pays again. That surely cannot be right, and I hope that the Minister will say whether this Bill, with all its new powers, might finally correct that imbalance.
I welcome this Bill, and I shall engage constructively as it proceeds, but I return to where I began. This Bill could do a great deal of good. It could also, I am afraid, give great disappointment. I think we all want the former outcome, not the latter, so the Government must be held closely to account.
Motorway Speed Cameras
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I can confirm that the review will look at the time it took between first knowledge and public action. We remain very confident that this is both a subset of speed cameras and a subset of variable speed signs, and that it applies only to some motorways and, I think, two A roads.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, there is considerable concern at the vast numbers of different speed limits that are now being applied in this country, both fixed and variable. I understand that the rules are being changed regarding the implementation of 20 mph speed limits in rural areas and some urban areas. Can the Minister update us on the present position regarding the 20 mph speed limits?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The 20 mph speed limit is utilised in areas where local highway authorities believe that road safety would be enhanced by its imposition. The Government do not intend to try to write the rules for all those circumstances; it is for local highway authorities to make judgments about speed limits and the road safety that is derived therefrom.
Channel Tunnel Infrastructure: Reliability
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
We are quite a long way from the New Year’s Eve disruption in the Channel Tunnel, but never mind.
The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the principal means by which the Government hold arm’s-length bodies to account is by control of the appointment of the chair and the board. That is a pretty reasonable level of control. If he reads the Bill that is currently in the other place, he will see that there is a variety of mechanisms for the Secretary of State to make sure, on behalf of customers and passengers, that Great British Railways does what the Government want. I do not think there is any defect in those arrangements, but no doubt we will discuss them further when the Bill comes before this House.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is rather curious that we have a situation where many providers would like to join in and provide services to the continent through the tunnel. However, I am concerned —and I would like the Minister to respond—by the limitations and regulations that seem to be being applied, which are preventing the speedy setting-up of these new services. Is he happy that there are no impediments whatever to further commercial services being provided?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am happy, because the principal constraint is actually the availability of trains compatible with the infrastructure on both sides of the channel and in the tunnel itself. They are very specialised; there are few manufacturers who can make them, and the constraint on Virgin starting its services will be the availability of trains. My department is working very hard to make sure that the depot facilities needed in London are provided for it. The relatively recent announcement from Trenitalia that it believes that it can also provide competitive services without a depot in the UK—and it may have access to trains sooner because it has already ordered some for other services in Europe—is a very welcome development.
Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I know there are a lot of colleagues from Northern Ireland present. Before we hear the elaboration here, I would just like to get some clarification, if I may, from the Minister.
We are, of course, party to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—1958 was the agreement signed by the United Kingdom—as are member states and the EU itself. Indeed, I was quite amazed to read the amount of regulation that the United Nations has applied in connection with motor vehicles. I speak not with direct knowledge but as vice-chairman of the Historic Vehicles All-Party Parliamentary Group, but it seems to me very interesting and really quite amazing that we cannot see the coming together of regulations, when some of the exemptions have clearly negatively affected the marketplace in Northern Ireland.
The detail in which the United Nations goes into these matters is quite extraordinary. For instance, on the emergency call systems that are now installed in all new motor cars, it requires confirmation of the details. Whether it is to be through 2G or 3G, as it was known, or under the new 4G or 5G speed of communication has to be specifically stated under United Nations Regulation 144. When it comes to ISOFIX—child seats, safety seats, and of course it is vital that they should be safe—the United Nations again has a clear regulation in place. Automated lane keeping systems that many new cars now have installed come under United Nations Regulation 157. Yet we seem to be behind the curve.
Our friends in America, particularly Mr Musk and his FSD Supervised—that is, the driving system where a car drives itself in an automated fashion—is now moved to a category called v14.2, which he has now asked the European authorities to approve for the markets both in Europe as a whole and in the United Kingdom in the hope that it will be installed or available from 2026. I wonder whether the United Nations has been consulted or if it is going to come in with its own regulations, which would give control of this situation more broadly.
Of course, it is right that Northern Ireland should not be in any way in difficulties over this. It is aligned with the United Nations, but in one or two cases—type approvals and so on—one or two elements seem to have been missed, so that Northern Ireland is out of sequence with the rest of the United Kingdom on certain of these regulations. Is not one of the answers to this to try to make sure that the United Nations umbrella is more available in order to oblige the manufacturers to make sure that the markets are equal and there are not these disparities, which are often taken for commercial reasons, due to the size of the relevant markets?
I happen to be in favour of alignment when it comes to standards in motor cars—I think it makes sense—but I am disappointed that the separation between one part of the UK and another in these regulations is both unfair and biased in such a way that it deprives one vital part of the United Kingdom of the opportunity to have commercial success in relation to what is undoubtedly a very useful United Kingdom enterprise.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which considered these regulations, and, like others, of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which also dealt in some small way with this issue, in that when we were in Newry, we took evidence from a representative of one of the car dealerships, and in fact I have had further discussions with him.
I would say that the root cause of all this is Brexit. Brexit means less choice and more cost for new car sales. In fact, after Brexit I was a victim of that, because I was seeking to purchase a new Renault Clio, and it took me some seven months in 2022 to secure that new car, because all the parts arrived from France, they were constructed and put together in Britain, and then the car was brought to Northern Ireland along with other similar cars. Then, when I got a flat tyre, it transpired that the wrong spare had been placed in the car. Therefore, it caused a lot of difficulties and challenges.
A consequence of Brexit is divergence. The people of Northern Ireland voted on a majority basis to remain within the European Union. Surely, safety standards in the UK and EU in terms of car manufacturing are similar, if not the same, so surely a solution could be found there. The report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states:
“While the existence of two vehicle approval regimes in the UK is a consequence of the Windsor Framework, we urge the DfT to consider all potential barriers that manufacturers may face in obtaining dual approval and the resulting impact on NI”.
Our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, back in April and May this year, wrote to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In his response to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the Secretary of State said that the Government were
“keen that Northern Ireland consumers have access to the same vehicles and models … as in Great Britain, and a key part of that is ensuring manufacturers can dual-approve vehicles to both the GB and EU type approval schemes”.
Having talked to the dealership, I note that it cannot understand and finds it totally inexplicable that the same standards in the EU and GB do not exist. The Secretary of State further states:
“Our goal is to ensure that the regulations that apply in the UK work well for businesses and to address practical issues where we can. We are working closely with manufacturers to ensure that UK-wide approvals for vehicles are available, and are considering what more we can do to smooth processes and fix any issues that may arise”.
I ask my noble friend the Minister: what further progress has been made in relation to this issue, as the Department for Transport has overall responsibility? In fact, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says in that letter that
“we continue to monitor regulatory activity in the EU and have recently adopted consistent rules for the design of rear registration plate space on vehicles. The Government intends to make announcements shortly on its intention in regard to a number of other EU regulations, including the Euro 6e emission standard”.
I ask my noble friend the Minister if he could advise us on that.
I will ask some other questions. Has the Department for Transport considered the delay in procuring cars, as they have to comply with certain regulations, and the impact on the local economy? Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I was told that there are problems for Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, Renault, Vauxhall and Citroën. People want to access such cars. They have used them traditionally, and they want to continue to use them, because they are cost effective.
What impact will this delay in the provision of certain EU car models to Northern Ireland have on our local economy? The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has already amplified that, but we want a solution to that, and we always have to remember that. I am clearly somebody who wants to see a route back to membership of the EU. I support the Windsor Framework but, where there are obstacles and challenges, they should be resolved and the Government should work directly with the EU as part of the reset in order to try to achieve something that is meaningful, practical and pragmatic. Last week, a BBC story emerged out of the Northern Ireland Assembly economy committee in relation to this issue.
Undoubtedly, we need the challenges, delays and lack of knowledge among businesses around the Windsor Framework to be resolved as quickly as possible. In that regard, I ask the Minister to outline when these issues around new car sales and approvals will be resolved, and to outline what discussions have taken place with the European Union to ensure that this happens.
Furthermore, when will we receive responses to the recently published reports, which dealt with the challenges and fissures in the system? One, the Independent Review of the Windsor Framework, was produced by my noble friend Lord Murphy; one, Strengthening Northern Ireland’s Voice in the Context of the Windsor Framework, was produced by our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee; and the third was produced by the Independent Monitoring Panel. They dealt with the challenges, difficulties and issues that need to be resolved. I agree that there may need to be a delay in the transition to this, in order to ensure that those difficulties can be resolved, but we must all remember that with Brexit came divergence and that it is difficult to achieve convergence in those circumstances.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for bringing forward these Motions and all who have contributed to the debate on these statutory instruments, which are very technical and cover a range of subjects that make up a small part of the type approval requirements for road vehicles. The instruments themselves are part of a continuing process to ensure that the regulatory requirements that apply to cars, vans and other road vehicles keep up with the fast pace of technological developments in the automotive industry. In the absence of updates such as these, the type approval requirements would rapidly become out of date and no longer be fit for purpose. Regular updates are necessary both to ensure that new vehicles meet the highest standards for safety, security and environmental performance and to support the introduction of new technologies and features to benefit UK drivers.
The international nature of vehicle production means that most technical regulatory requirements are harmonised around the world. These are developed in the United Nations by experts from countries as far apart as Japan, Australia and South Africa, but also by experts from the United Kingdom and from European Union member states. More than 70% of GB requirements derive from the United Nations requirements. For instance, the statutory instruments we are discussing today applied in Great Britain the UN regulation on automated lane-keeping systems, UN Regulation 157. These are some of the first examples of self-driving systems, and the statutory instruments allow manufacturers to bring these safely to market.
These statutory instruments also recognise another UN regulation concerning anchorages in vehicles—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, remarked —that allow child restraints to be safely installed. These UN regulations have been adopted across the globe, including the EU, and it makes sense that they should also apply in the United Kingdom. Through the application of these international regulations, UK experts continue to play an important and influential role in setting the regulatory requirements that apply across the United Kingdom.
These amendments will also ensure that a safety system known as eCall continues to work effectively as the mobile signals it relies on switch from the older 2G and 3G standards to the newer 4G and 5G standards. The eCall system works by automatically calling the emergency services in the event of a severe crash, improving response times—especially in single-vehicle accidents in remote areas. In the absence of these amendments, safety would be lowered. My department consulted on these amendments, both publicly and with the devolved Administrations, and the responses showed overwhelming support for the proposals and for the approach to ensuring that GB regulations remain aligned with those in the EU.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I am looking at the Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations. Let me just read out paragraph 5.12, which says:
“Type approval authorities of Governments (‘contracting parties’) that sign up to an internationally agreed specification”—
here, it is referring to the United Nations regulation—
“are permitted to issue approvals to vehicles or components that comply with that regulation. Contracting parties”—
that must include the EU as well as the UK—
“must accept vehicles and components type-approved by another contracting party that is a signatory to the relevant UNECE regulation”.
Does the Minister not think that that brings not a solution, perhaps, but something where the Government can act to make sure that there is a benefit to Northern Ireland in this matter?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord; I will come back to that point, if I may. I am sorry—I have lost my train of thought.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is okay.
I am mindful of the concerns that have been raised around businesses in Northern Ireland—I will come back to that point in a moment—and the challenges that, as we have heard, they face. It is important that dealers and consumers in Northern Ireland are not restricted in their choice of vehicle brands and models, and have the same choice as those across the rest of the UK. The GB-type approval scheme, which these statutory instruments amend, was designed to support manufacturers to mark vehicles with both an EU and a GB approval; the Government fully expect manufacturers to do so.
The technical requirements in the GB scheme are such that vehicle manufacturers can design and approve a single vehicle for the entire UK market. They do not need to conduct additional testing for the GB market or fit components that differ from those used on vehicles intended for the market in Northern Ireland. The updates to the GB scheme made by these statutory instruments preserve this situation and avoid divergence that could prevent the free movement of new vehicles throughout the UK. The interests of both the UK Government and the European Union are the same: we both want vehicles that are safe, clean and secure. UK and EU officials will continue to work together in UN forums to ensure that the regulations reflect this common aim.
None the less, the Government are aware that there is apprehension among some manufacturers and dealerships regarding the potential for future divergence between Great Britain-type and Northern Ireland-type approval systems. To that end, my department has reassured businesses that they should operate on the basis of an explicit presumption of alignment between the GB and the EU schemes. Again, this reflects the shared objectives of improving vehicle standards and working together to develop common technical regulations; it also demonstrates that this Government are committed to providing certainty and clarity to business by ensuring that the type approval regulations remain up to date while easing administrative burdens and supporting trade. My colleague in another place, then the Minister for Roads, wrote to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on 25 June specifically to set out both that commitment and our concern that the basis of the presumption should always be that it will be aligned between the GB and the EU schemes.
These statutory instruments reflect this approach by aligning with the EU on eCall, making sure that the GB scheme uses the same test procedures and applies the same UN regulations. The Government fully expect that vehicles will be dual marked wherever possible to ensure that they can be sold across the United Kingdom. Moreover, we monitor developments and have listened to concerns raised by businesses in Northern Ireland, where it appears that legislation might inadvertently create distortions in the marketplace. We continue to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market; indeed, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury announced in July that we intend to legislate for a UK-wide easement in the benefit-in-kind tax applicable to vehicles in order to address concerns that the recent move to a new emissions level, known as Euro 6e, would unfairly affect customers of vehicles that meet the new emissions standards.
Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive outline of this topic. I seek clarification on two areas.
In paragraph 6.4 of the EM, reference is made to low-risk parts. Paragraph 5.4 also talks about allowing
“certain aircraft components to be installed without needing a Form 1, as long as they are declared safe by the design organisation”.
I want a little clarification here on what is defined as a low-risk part. I ask this for the right reasons, having spent 25 years in the industry—much of that time onboard aircraft—and having dealt with primary legislation for many years as a Member of the European Parliament.
In 1990, there was an incident involving a BAC 1-11. When a windscreen was replaced, the incorrect screws were used. That caused what we would have called a rapid decompression; they called it an explosive decompression. I knew the crew. The captain survived; he was swept out of the window. Since that accident, there was also a rise in fake parts, about which the industry was very concerned. Barcoding was introduced to ensure that the equipment, parts and components were all absolutely authentic.
My point is that the component that caused the accident was a tiny screw. You would look at it in the round as being a fairly low-risk component. It was just a general thing; it was nothing complex. I ask the Minister: what do the Government consider “low-risk parts”? Would they be used on certain parts of an aircraft that would not require a Form 1? We cannot be too general about these things because there is always a chain of events; the smallest component can cause a technical incident or accident. That is my first point.
My second point concerns drones. I drafted the drone report in the European Parliament in 2015. It was about the civil use of drones and the rise in the industry. The CAA has been extremely good. We have a fantastic organisation in it—as well as an excellent Department for Transport, if I may say so, having worked closely with many members of that department over time. My question is: does the CAA intend to delegate the assessment of drone pilot competency and of drones’ flightworthiness to third parties? The CAA has introduced excellent training for drone pilots—it did that itself—but who would these third parties be, in terms of taking over the role that the CAA currently holds, in which it is absolutely diligent in giving out licences?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lady Foster, I will touch on the second point she raised, because it is relevant. We have a situation where the CAA’s delegation and decision-making powers are being changed because of the nature of the arrangements with the European Union.
This whole set of regulations is part of a much broader project led by the CAA at the moment, which deals with, among other things, the simplification of the licensing and training of general aviation pilots—of which I am one. The issues around the changes in licensing are very important, because they bring about the ability of someone, who, like me, flies a single-engine piston aircraft, to fly an electric aircraft. I will not go into the shock-horror that the likelihood of me flying an electric aircraft is equivalent to my enthusiasm for driving an electric car, which is rather limited at the moment.
My question, which follows on from the point raised by my noble friend Lady Foster, is about the delegation of powers to the CAA. She raised a very good point on drones, but I would like the Minister to set out for us whether there were any changes as a result of these circumstances in the agencies, which can have a delegation from the CAA to make decisions, and whether that is adequate in terms of who looks into which agencies can have those delegated powers.
I will raise another point. This statutory instrument does not appear to have happened through impact assessments or anything else; it is a usual statutory instrument where nothing seems to have been necessary to draw to anyone’s attention. To what extent are the resources of the CAA being tested, as a result of these regulations or of ones that have been envisaged? As I think we are all aware, the CAA is short of cash. It is already doing a considerable number of functions, including coming up to date on the things that I have referred to: technology, licensing, the training of pilots and so on.
There is also the question of safety, which develops inexorably as we go along due to the rise of new-generation aircraft. There is also the issue around airports, including the changes in the control zone basis of airports, which must be costing the CAA considerable sums of money. Can the Minister also confirm that there are adequate resources for the operation of the CAA to pay agencies or others to which it delegates powers, and that he is satisfied that we will not need to go back to the Treasury and ask it for more cash? Safety in the air—the safety of training and the other uses of pilots et cetera—must be paramount if our skies are to be secure.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to the Minister for arranging a very helpful briefing by officials.
Like my noble friend Lady Foster of Oxton, I had some concern about the abandonment of the use of Form 1 for certain non-safety critical parts. We can rely only on the personal assurance of the Minister that, in proceeding in this route, he and his department will take full responsibility for the consequences of that decision. As my noble friend pointed out, the notion of a non-safety critical part can be deceptive because of the close integration of every working part on an aircraft. We cannot challenge the statutory instrument on that basis; we have to accept that the Minister and his department know what they are doing and that they are willing to accept the responsibility that falls on them from pursuing this proposal.
I also share the caution expressed by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate about the delegation of Civil Aviation Authority powers, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. Beyond that, and with those reservations, the Official Opposition have no objection to this instrument, which consists largely of consolidation and clarification. We have no objection to it, but we would like to hear the Minister’s response on those areas that cause us some potential concern.
Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I shall intervene reasonably briefly on this matter and, in doing so, I declare my interest not as someone who has captained or flown a hovercraft but as a holder of a private pilot’s licence in aviation. In probing this matter, I first refer to the definition of a hovercraft, not from a maritime document but from Aviation World, which says:
“A hovercraft is a type of vehicle that is designed to travel over a variety of surfaces, including land, water, and ice, using a cushion of air. The vehicle is propelled by one or more fans, which create an air flow that lifts the hovercraft off the ground and allows it to ‘float’ on the surface”.
“One of the key features of a hovercraft is its versatility. Unlike boats, which are limited to water, and cars, which are limited to roads, a hovercraft can travel over a wide range of terrains”—
this is getting to my point—
“including mud, sand, grass, and even shallow water. This makes them ideal for rescue operations, transportation in marshy or wetland areas and for military uses”.
The Minister has rightly mentioned that, at the present time, there is very limited commercial use of hovercraft in this country. He referred to the Solent, where hovercraft are in use, but I point out to him that there is considerable and increasing use of hovercraft on the land and in the military, and their uses are always being looked at and developed. I am proud to say that this was a design patented by a UK citizen, Christopher Cockerell, in 1955. For a long time, we developed the commercial use of these craft, particularly in the channel and elsewhere. The world did not directly follow us in that way, but it then started to look at alternative uses.
I come to the points of probing that I would like to make to the Minister. First, these are inevitably maritime regulations. In fact, looking at the commercial use of hovercraft, I assume that they are always of the feminine gender, because they follow ships and boats, which tend to have that designation—it is not quite the same with the Army, which I do not think would do that. I would like a little explanation on the following. We are making maritime law apply to the use of hovercraft, yet the use of hovercraft in a maritime setting is diminishing while their use across land and other surfaces is increasing. Can the Minister help me understand how the regulations apply to hovercraft that are not on the sea or water?
Also, in relation to the issues he mentioned of pollution, casualties and safety requirements, what measures are there to protect people? What measures are there in relation to pollution in the environmental setting as they relate to these vehicles or crafts?
Finally, on insurance, it is interesting that in the maritime setting ships tend to be insured through Lloyd’s Register and tend to be insured specifically on a maritime basis. Is the insurance of hovercraft required to fit in with maritime law in this way, or is it covered in some other manner?
I hope that my short contribution has not confused anybody, but it seems to me that these narrower provisions before us today, which are drafted on a maritime basis, do not necessarily reflect the reality of the use of this wonderful invention of Christoper Cockerell.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this draft order. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest shown in ensuring our maritime legislation remains coherent and fit for purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, spoke eloquently about the varied use of hovercraft other than in the circumstances in which they are currently principally used for marine purposes. My assurance is that these regulations cover the use of hovercraft in the sea and near the sea; the use of them on land is outside the scope of this legislation. I will write to him further about what I can tell him about the use of hovercraft on land. Of course, we have to, and should, take proper account of their use in commercial service in the remaining service within which they operate. It is important, therefore, that the regulations are up to date. The intention is to keep them up to date in order that that service can continue for as long as possible.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, gave us a very clear understanding of the history of hovercraft. He referred to two serious accidents, which is, of course, the reason why these regulations should be kept up to date and that the hovercraft in service that the public are currently using are properly regulated.
We do not intend to withdraw the order, because it is necessary to ensure that we have continuous and proper regulation of hovercraft. This order is the means of doing that.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked about the fee calculation. The fees are calculated at a cost recovery level. There are no new fees or increases to fees. There would be full consultation before there were to be any new or increased fees. I believe that answers the point raised by the noble Lord.
As I said, there was no consultation because there was no material difference, but the department is in constant discussion with the operators of the remaining hovercraft service—principally, as noble Lords may know, about the controversy over the level and quality of all services to the Isle of Wight.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister mid flow. He very kindly suggested that he would write to me. I know that the maritime regulations are narrow, as he said, in that, according to this, they cover the operation of the hovercraft only on the sea or, presumably, on water. But a lot of the hovercraft now deployed, particularly military and others, combine running on water, land, across mud and across ice. That is the whole joy of the air cushion. They do not run on roads, so we cannot talk about Road Traffic Acts or anything like that. It is of great interest to me to know how these regulations are applied, particularly in a multi-use case such as that or, indeed, where they never go near water. That is what I am puzzled about. I realise that this measure is not about that, and I do not want to spoil it like that, but if the Minister could ask officials and so on to write to me about that, I would be so grateful.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a valued point, and I will write to him fully. The intention of this order is only to cope with their maritime use and the marginal use of the slipway at each side of the Solent. I will write to the noble Lord separately about his valuable point, because it is clear that some regulation ought to apply. But I am assured that the intention of the order is to regulate these craft in respect of their use on and absolutely near the sea, on the slipways. So I completely understand his point. I will write to him as fully as I am able about what applies in the circumstances in which those craft are used on land.
Suffice it to say that, although safety and other environmental protections are absolutely needed, the primary intention of the order is to continue to regulate hovercraft in public service—on the remaining public service in which they are used—in an up-to-date manner. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to two serious incidents over the course of the years, and I am sure that noble Lords would agree with me that it is absolutely essential that the regulations are kept in order so that, were there to be any such incident, it would be properly dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised the question of ambulatory reference. I am not able to tell him whether this applies anywhere else, but I handily have some remarks about ambulatory reference in this particular circumstance. It is a reference in domestic legislation to an international instrument that is interpreted as a reference to the international instrument as modified from time to time and not simply the version of the instrument that exists at the time that the domestic legislation is made.
The Deregulation Act 2015 gave a power, through an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 by inserting new Section 306A, to include ambulatory references in domestic maritime legislation implementing international agreements—namely, ones not derived from the European Union. Using ambulatory references in merchant shipping legislation is a useful means of ensuring that secondary legislation gives full effect to future technical amendments to existing international maritime conventions that are adopted by the International Maritime Organization—IMO—and that the UK has already implemented. These include, but are not limited to, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973. These conventions are regularly updated.
It is to the benefit of the UK shipping industry to have a mechanism whereby domestic shipping legislation can remain up to date with the international standards. It maintains an international level playing field and ensures that UK shipping complies with the requirements of any other International Maritime Organization member state to which that UK shipping travels.
Although ambulatory reference provision in domestic law allows future amendments to international conventions to be incorporated automatically into domestic law, the United Kingdom will nevertheless be able to continue to scrutinise and, if necessary, object to proposed changes in the international arena in the International Maritime Organization and assess their impact well before any amendment is due to come into force, which will inform decision-making.
United Kingdom industry and worker stakeholders will also be involved at the stage that the United Kingdom negotiating strategy is formulated, and they will be able to influence it. Some principal stakeholders representing industry and workers are affiliated to non-government international organisations, which have been granted consultative status at the IMO and make substantial contributions to the work of the IMO, contributing sector knowledge, insight and expertise.
If an amendment is objected to by the United Kingdom, it will come into force internationally. The Secretary of State will make amending secondary legislation to prevent that amendment coming into force domestically. An amendment that is accepted will, before coming into force in UK law, be publicised by means of a parliamentary Statement to both Houses of Parliament and the subject of guidance issued by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would not want the UK’s shipping industry to be burdened by the failure to comply with the IMO. I believe that the statement I made in respect of ambulatory reference deals with the necessary scrutiny, both to amendments that are objected to by the United Kingdom and to those that are accepted.
I have attempted, at least, to deal with the points raised by noble Lords this afternoon. This order is necessary to ensure that hovercraft remain subject to the same safety and pollution prevention requirements as ships, where applicable. It strengthens our maritime regulatory regime and ensures consistency across vessel types. I will write to the noble Lord on the subject that he requests further information on—I am very happy to do so. I hope that noble Lords have found this informative and that they will join me in supporting these measures.
Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, in the new spirit in the House of declarations of interests, I declare mine at the outset. I do so as a private pilot, a former director of Newcastle airport and the author of an investigation into lower airspace, which was brought about at the request of the then Transport Secretary Sir Grant Shapps. It was primarily to do with lower airspace, but it highlighted a number of things.
I will not speak for long, but I want to ask the Minister a few questions. I welcome very much what is being proposed, but I wonder to what extent it can be delivered. It is extremely complicated because it deals with a very complicated situation in relation not only to lower airspace but to upper airspace, the whole area of control zones around airports and the historic position of airports themselves as sponsors of changes to airspace. This has always been an area of great concern, particularly to general aviation, which is rather more random in its representation. Unlike the airports—which have their own clear bodies to represent them and the institution—airlines and others, general aviation is a bit more haphazard and therefore in need of protection, if I may put it that way, from government.
These proposed changes have enormous implications for those involved in general aviation—and business aviation too—first, by removing individual effort and the sponsors that exist currently, particularly the airports themselves. I hope that there will be sufficient objectivity in the decisions that are taken to maintain GA’s position in any redesign mechanism. There have been concerns over the years that, because of the sponsorship by airports and their own determination to hold on to airspace and control zones for their own commercial benefit as well as—they claim—for safety and security, we have seen a diminution in parts of the country of the convenience and ability of general aviation to operate.
The south-east of England is a classic case. I am lucky in that I fly mostly in the north and in Scotland, where we do not have control zones for much of the territory. This makes it a much freer situation for GA, and that is very helpful. I note that there is to be an initial stage—if you like—of these processes, which will concentrate on the London area. I hope, therefore, that the views and feelings of GA will be fully taken into account in the redesign that might take place.
Secondly, it seems to me, and one of the criticisms has been, that, “What we have, we hold”, appeared to be the attitude of a lot of those who sponsored airspace controls. Very rarely do people seem to want to give up anything. Changes in technology, which are referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum and have been dramatic over the last few years, seem to suggest that some airports currently have airspace controls that are unnecessary and could be yielded up for use by general aviation, certainly in terms of routing and so on. I would like to know whether there will be sufficient protection for them.
Thirdly, on the question of airports, the initial stages of proposals from the airports produced a rather mixed outcome. Some airports appeared to be quick off the mark and willing to take part in a modernisation proposal; others seemed more reluctant. Therefore, I wonder to what extent these proposals will be able to go ahead in a way that produces something comprehensive, rather than, as we currently have, a bit of a mishmash of circumstances. It is awfully important that all these elements are brought together—and with the support of the various people who have been involved so far in sponsoring and directing these events. Will the Minister comment further on that?
Finally, on the timescale, we have been doing this for quite a long time. This measure is welcome but we were making progress way back before we had the Covid situation. Unfortunately, things seem to have become rather slow. That is inevitable, I suppose, but I would like to see some kind of clear timescale so that we can bring matters to a head and finalise a comprehensive scheme to which all parties are signed up.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
In many ways, it is quite extraordinary that no single organisation in the UK is currently responsible for creating a modern and integrated airspace design. As we have heard, across the country, airspace change proposals are sponsored by individual bodies—usually airports or air navigation service providers—and, in more congested areas, such as London, there are multiple overlapping ACPs, each with a separate sponsor.
Aviation law is governed by an international system of rules set by the International Civil Aviation Organization. In many ICAO contracting states there is one entity, usually a public body, responsible for airspace planning and design; that same body is also responsible for air traffic services and air navigation. This clearly makes it much easier to deliver airspace change that benefits the whole state’s airspace than is currently possible in the UK.
We therefore welcome this SI, which changes licensing rules to allow a single new UK airspace design service to be created and to oversee both airspace modernisation and changes to use of airspace. We welcome steps to better co-ordinate a disjointed system of managing airspace but, of course, we will hold the Government to account to ensure that modernisation works for all our communities and for our environment. It is important to bring airspace into the 21st century, to deliver flight paths that cut emissions and to ensure that journeys are quicker, quieter and cleaner. However, with any changes there will be winners and losers. The Government must recognise this and work with communities as airspace is modernised—not least in congested areas, such as London.
We must also ensure that airspace modernisation reflects the needs of our communities, recognising the impact that noise and air pollution can have on people and on nature. I think in particular of residents in Richmond and other west London boroughs who suffer greatly because of flights relating to Heathrow and are fearful of any changes. I ask the Minister: how do the Government plan to ensure that the new UK airspace design service works openly and transparently with communities that are impacted by aviation, genuinely engages and consults, and is a trusted, independent voice in this area, because there is a lot of suspicion in many communities? Also, will this new organisation be subject to freedom of information legislation?
Cambridge South Station: Car Parking
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord that good public transport is vital for a growing, developing city such as Cambridge. But, of course, he will not expect me to endorse any particular use of public money in advance of the current spending review.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raised a very interesting question about Cambridge South, which is more Hobson’s choice than Hobson’s Park as far as motorists are concerned, but there is a general question about railway stations around the country. In York, the long-stay car park is now closed permanently. It is more and more difficult for people to have access to collect passengers from trains—or, indeed, to travel. Would the Minister comment on the general approach that we should take about getting a proper balance between those who travel by rail and those who travel to rail by car?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord that access to the station is just as important as railway travel from the station. In respect of existing stations, the Office of Rail and Road has specific powers to protect car parking space. I know a little bit about the situation in York, where the previous long-stay car parking will be replaced by new long-stay car parking. The noble Lord will also know that there is a development outside the station to make all interchange easier at the station for all passengers who want to use trains.
Commercial Vehicles: Safety
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, we are keen on safety throughout the country. Indeed, our own drivers are very well trained, in general, but there are real concerns that foreign drivers, who seem to be involved in quite a lot of the accidents that occur with heavy goods vehicles, do not appear be trained to the same standards. Will the Minister kindly comment on that and say what we are doing in association with other countries, particularly in Europe, to make sure that their standards are maintained?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The standards of professional vocational drivers in Britain are very high. The tests that you have to pass and the continuous professional development, which is broadly similar to the continuous professional development applied in European countries, are also very strong. Enforcement activities are run by the Vehicle Inspectorate, which is part of the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency. It is much more sophisticated in targeting enforcement than perhaps it once was, including making sure that those who drive commercial vehicles from other countries on our roads are consistently to the same standard of safety as our own vehicles and drivers are. I will leave the detail of how it enforces what it does to it, but it appears to be very successful enforcement activity.