Aviation: International Trade

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am certain that the whole House welcomes the innovations in technology for commercial aircraft.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Now that the Government have decided “No ifs, no buts, it’s a third runway at Heathrow”, which differs at least marginally from their previous “no ifs, no buts” pledge, what plans do they have to increase the range of international direct flights from our international airports outside London and the south-east, and in so doing to provide the opportunity for an increase in air freight traffic, including exports, from at least some of those airports—in the north in particular—direct to other parts of the world?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises an important point about freight, and that was part and parcel of the decision that we took last week. He talks about international connections outside London and the south-east. I am delighted to tell him why I was in Manchester yesterday—because I was welcoming the first Singapore Airlines flight to Manchester, which, for the first time, was flying directly to Houston. That was a first for Manchester Airport, a first for Singapore Airlines and a first for the north-west, outside London and the south-east.

Road Safety: Eye Tests

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord speaks from great experience in this regard and I will certainly take his suggestion back. I found that my recent eye test was thorough in every respect, but the department and I will reflect on his point about those who are older.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Following the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Simon, how many fatal road accidents per year do the Government accept can be attributed in part or wholly to the eyesight of one or more of the parties involved in the accident being below the standard required to pass the driving test?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I shall write to the noble Lord on the specifics, but as I have said, our safety standards have led to one of the lowest comparative figures across Europe for such accidents, and the Government are looking at how they can work with the medical profession. The pilot in Birmingham that I referred to consists of 113 surgeries where people can talk to their general practitioners about the need for an eye test and nominate themselves to get their eyes tested. Indeed, GPs are also looking at how their duty of care can be extended where someone refuses or is unable to report their eyesight deficiency to the DVLA.

Airport Capacity

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in the Commons by the Secretary of State for Transport. It is a Statement made against a backdrop of previous Conservative promises that, “no ifs, no buts”, there would be no third runway at Heathrow, a pledge given by the last Prime Minister and enthusiastically supported previously by the present Prime Minister and, it seems, her constituency local authority. The image of politics in this country has not been enhanced by today’s announcement in light of previous emphatic “no ifs, no buts” pledges, whether or not one thinks the now Government’s supported option announced today is correct.

While we welcome the fact that a decision on the preferred location for an additional runaway has been made, I want to pursue the question of the status of that decision. Apparently there is to be an extended though undefined period of further discussion and consultation which could last for a year or more before a final decision is made by Parliament. Is that correct? Is this further consultation in line with the national policy statement process in respect of only the implementation of the preferred option of a third runway at Heathrow announced today, or could the outcome of the consultation lead to a further change of heart by the Government away from their now declared preferred option? I would like a specific answer on that point.

Put another way, can the Minister confirm that all three options in the Davies commission report for additional runway capacity in the south-east are no longer on the table, and instead only the preferred option just announced is still there, and that likewise doing nothing to provide additional runway capacity in the south-east is not an option unless Parliament fails to approve the preferred option in a vote? Are we now at the stage as far as the Government are concerned of, “no ifs, no buts, it is a third runway at Heathrow and we the Government will consider only representations made in respect of its development”? If that is not the case, then uncertainty apparently continues for a further year or more.

Do the provisions of the national policy statement lay down that the further consultation must be of the length of time now suggested in some quarters? If not, why do the Government believe that such a further period of apparently extended consultation is needed before a final decision is made by Parliament if the only issues to be considered relate to implementation?

We have already said that, having asked the Airports Commission to undertake its report, there would have to be overwhelming evidence that the report and its conclusions were fundamentally flawed for us to depart from it. We will now need to consider the Government’s preferred option and the evidence to support the reasons they are putting forward for reaching that decision. We will expect to see the conclusions—and the evidence behind the conclusions—of the further investigations and analysis the Government have undertaken over the past 15 months following the publication of the Davies commission report. Perhaps now, today, the Government can tell us what impact they have concluded the preferred option of a third runway at Heathrow will have on achieving our climate change objectives and why.

I reiterate the four tests we have previously set out that any proposal for airport expansion must meet: that robust and convincing evidence is produced that the commission’s recommendations would provide sufficient capacity; that the United Kingdom’s legal climate change obligations can still be met; that local noise and environmental impacts can be managed and minimised; and that the benefits of any expansion are not confined to London and the south-east. We have already backed the Airports Commission’s recommendation that a statutory independent noise authority should be created, although apparently the Government have not yet done so.

We recognise the need for additional runway capacity in London and the south-east. Heathrow has been full for a decade and Gatwick’s single runway is the busiest in the world. Yet even following the announcement today, an additional runway is a decade or more away. What do the Government intend to do to address the runway capacity challenges that exist at present and will continue to exist until that additional capacity is provided? Do the Government have plans to utilise existing capacity in the south-east—for example, at Stansted and Luton—or are there any intentions to change practices at Heathrow or Gatwick in the short term to increase capacity? Indeed, what plans do the Government have for improving our international gateway airports around the UK, not least improving surface access by road and rail? There is no mention of this in the Statement. Does that mean that there are unlikely to be further capacity increases at our other airports? What will the Government’s position be if Gatwick still seeks to pursue its second runway option?

The Airports Commission said:

“The additional income generated as a result of operating a third runway should be allocated in a new way, and the airport should be obliged to develop a better and more collaborative relationship with its local communities, as some overseas airports have done”.

It went on to recommend that,

“a number of measures should be taken forward, in parallel with the approval, construction and operation of any new capacity at Heathrow, to address its impacts on the local environment and communities”.

These measures related to a “noise envelope” and,

“a ban on all scheduled night flights”,

between specific hours. The commission also called for,

“periods of predictable respite to be more reliably maintained”,

and compensation for,

“those who would lose their homes at full market value plus an additional 25% and reasonable costs”.

The commission said that the airport operator should deliver on,

“its commitment to spend more than £1 billion on community compensation”,

which, together with,

“a new aviation noise charge or levy … would fund enhanced noise insulation and other schemes”,

including support for schools. The commission also recommended:

“A Community Engagement Board should be established under an independent Chair, with real influence over spending on compensation and community support and over the airport’s operations … An independent aviation noise authority should be established with a statutory right to be consulted on flight paths and other operating procedures”,

and called for:

“Training opportunities and apprenticeships for local people”,

and:

“A major shift in mode-share for those working at and arriving at the airport”.

Finally, the commission said:

“Additional operations at an expanded Heathrow must be contingent on acceptable performance on air quality”,

and:

“A fourth runway should be firmly ruled out”.

Should the final decision be an additional runway at Heathrow, we would expect those recommendations from the commission to be adopted and delivered. We will certainly insist that the Government set out very clearly and well in advance how they intend to ensure that those recommendations will be adhered to, what action will be taken to ensure that there is no backsliding and what action will be taken if there is. Will the Minister categorically assure the House that all of the commission’s recommendations, to which I have just referred, will be implemented?

The Government’s Statement, although it represents progress towards a decision, does not represent a final decision, since a final decision will not be taken for at least another year. Today, the House was hoping for a decision that represented certainty; it is unfortunate that the Statement falls short of that.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I predict that the decision made today will solve nothing because it will be locked in legal challenge for years to come. It is a decision that answers the questions of decades ago, not today’s questions. It is bad for the environment and it is bad for the UK as a whole because still more investment will be poured into the south-east, ignoring the potential of regional airports such as Birmingham and Manchester. It is bad for passengers because they will pick up the tab in the end. The eye-watering cost of this project, which the BA chief executive has called “outrageous”, will, in the end, fall on passengers. The interesting thing is that the Statement hardly had a pound sign in it, and the figures that were quoted were largely speculative about possible benefits to the economy.

What estimates have the Government made of the cost to the public purse of this whole development? How much of the massive cost of infrastructure improvements, which are essential if the Government are to meet their promises on air quality, will the Government pay? We know that Heathrow is expecting airlines to contribute up front and that BA is refusing to do so, so are the Government confident that Heathrow can finance its portion of the costs?

This will inevitably lead to additional charges for airlines. What work has been done to ensure that airlines are prepared to accept those additional costs and will not simply move elsewhere? Are the Government convinced—because I am not—that passengers are willing to pay more to fly from Heathrow, because airlines will pass the cost on to them? Heathrow promises six more domestic routes by 2030 and in the Statement the Government promise to hold it to account. How do they plan to do that?

This will be seen as a decision for the south-east, but faced with the huge challenges of Brexit, we need to engage the whole of the UK, so what additional investment will the Government now allocate to the Midlands and the north to allow regional airports to develop and grow?

On air quality, the Statement makes bold claims, but there is not one tiny detail on how this pollution revolution is to be achieved. Can the Minister give us more information? I note that the Statement is much more downbeat on noise; it simply accepts the concept that it will be a noisy procedure.

Finally, I want to address an issue that was not covered in the Statement: the ownership of Heathrow, which is only 10% British-owned. Although the consortium that owns it has distributed £2 billion in dividends to shareholders in the past four years, it has paid only £24 million in corporation tax in the last 10 years. Will the Minister assure us that this airport, which will be favoured with so much public investment, will at least pay its dues in taxation?

Obscene amounts of money have been spent on persuading us and the Government that Heathrow is the right decision. We know the Conservatives are hopelessly split on this issue and have broken their promises on it and that the Labour leadership has flip-flopped backwards and forwards on it, but we on these Benches have remained steadfast for two decades.

Airports: London

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I suspected this question might come up, so I have been thumbing through my thesaurus, which is quite well read. All I can say is that perhaps “shortly” will also mean “imminently”.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, what is the current status of the Conservative Party pledge in 2009: no ifs, no buts, no third runway at Heathrow?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As the noble Lord is aware, the previous Prime Minister made that statement when he was looking at a very different proposition. Since then, as the noble Lord is also aware, the commission has reported and presented three viable options. The Government will be looking to make a call on south-east capacity shortly.

Southern Rail

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, the noble Lord is right to point out the operational challenges posed to consumers and those visiting the UK. I assure him that the new Rail Minister is in constant dialogue with the operator and with Network Rail. In addition, it is important to note that while a reduced timetable has been in operation, I am pleased to say that 119 services which were originally suspended have today been reintroduced, which I hope will have a positive impact on the scheduling of services.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Unless the Government take the hardly objective view that no responsibility of any significance for the poor level of service provided by Southern Rail can be attributed to the performance, or lack of it, of the top management of the company and that industrial action is the only cause of that poor service, why is Southern Rail not in breach of the terms of its franchise contract? Why has the Government’s response been not to take any action against the company for that breach but, instead, to provide additional money to improve services when Southern Rail is part of a transport organisation which we now know would have no difficulty in finding that money itself. That additional money is coming from the taxes of the very passengers having to put up with poor service and cancellations over a lengthy period—a double whammy for Southern Rail passengers if ever there was one.

Airports: London

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Baroness that, knowing the new Prime Minister well, the right honourable lady will make all decisions, whether on airport expansion or on the economy and our position on the international stage, focusing on what is of benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole. The noble Baroness raises an important issue about regional airport capacity and regional connectivity. I assure her and the whole House again that the decision taken on expansion of south-east capacity will reflect the importance of the aviation industry and airport connectivity, in particular to our international positioning.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Are there any issues relating to additional runway capacity in the south-east and the Davies commission report that are now being considered by Theresa May’s Government that were not being considered, prior to his leaving office, by David Cameron’s Government?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Government’s position remains consistent. The Prime Minister may have changed but the Government’s position remains that the Davies commission was commissioned to look specifically at airport capacity in the south-east. As I said earlier, there are three options on the table and they are all being considered.

Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, all of us will welcome these new regulations, which my noble friend presents. We know already that there are two patterns; the first is that of those who have been prescribed amphetamine medically, whose level will almost certainly be under 200 micrograms per litre of blood tested; the second is that of those taking illicit drugs, normally in excess of 270 micrograms per litre of blood. Therefore, it makes sense, as my noble friend points out, and as the regulations stipulate, to have a limit of 250 micrograms per litre of blood—below the second measure and well above the first.

On saving lives and reducing road accidents caused by drugs, other recent interventions are also to be welcomed. These include the recent publicity campaign as well as new screening devices for drugs. However, there are still far too many road accidents. As we are aware, a high proportion is caused by drivers between 18 and 25 years of age. Will my noble friend say what action she and her colleagues might be prepared to take? One such, which has proved to work well in Australia as well as in a number of other states, is a restriction on carrying passengers applied to those in their early of years of driving.

Will the Minister also say what plans we have to help raise road standards, both here and internationally? In the World Health Organization, there is now a technical consultation committee on drugs and driving. Might its focus be widened to include drink as well as drugs; and apart from those substances, could international scrutiny be developed to compare notes on all pragmatic measures to help reduce accidents?

In Europe we have the DRUID project, to which my noble friend referred. What has this achieved lately? Which further steps, initiatives and co-ordination may be desirable to improve its results?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations, which specify amphetamine as a controlled drug for the purposes of drug-driving and sets a limit above which it will be an offence to drive. We support the regulation but I have one or two questions about the Explanatory Memorandum—which, before I go any further, I accept may reveal that I have not understood it.

Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“Fewer than 2,200 proceedings were brought in 2013 under the existing section 4 impairment offence, with the proportion of guilty findings from the proceedings at only around 54%. This is compared to the 44,700 proceedings for the section 5 drink driving offence and the 96% proportion of guilty findings”.

However, the Explanatory Memorandum for the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) (No 2) Order 2015, which deals with penalties and was debated on 24 February, contains other figures. I am not clear on this. Can the Minister indicate whether I am comparing apples with apples or apples with pears? Paragraph 7.1 of that Explanatory Memorandum says:

“Fewer than 1,200 proceedings were brought in 2013 under the existing section 4 RTA ‘impairment offence’”.

It goes on to refer to the proportion of guilty findings from the proceedings of being unfit through drugs as being only around 72%, whereas the Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations quotes a figure of 54%. Today’s regulations refer to a comparison of 44,700 proceedings for the Section 5 drink driving offence, whereas the February order said this is compared to the nearly 47,000 proceedings in relation to that RTA offence. I fully accept that I may not be comparing like with like, but I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the different figures and whether I am making a fair comparison—in which case I am asking why they are different—or whether the figures relate to different issues, in which case it would be helpful if the Minister could explain in what way they differ.

In her detailed and thorough explanation of the background to these regulations, the Minister made reference to the increase in the original intended limit of 50 micrograms per litre of blood to 250 micrograms, and gave the reasons for it. The reasons for it, basically, were to address the point of not discouraging the legitimate use of amphetamine for medical purposes. Bearing in mind the original limit of 50 micrograms, which I think the document says was favoured in a majority of responses, I am not clear about to what extent one would expect an individual’s driving to be further impaired if they were at the new proposed limit of 250 micrograms per litre of blood rather than 50 micrograms. I appreciate that the Minister sought to address this in her introduction, but I would like a bit more clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, thank you very much. I shall talk through the questions in reverse order, with the latest being freshest in my mind. I can say to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that the cost of these screening devices is around £16 or £17—obviously there is some variation in price. He will be glad to know that at this point 35 of the 43 forces have purchased mobile screening devices, with 5,000 purchased in total. He is right that it is more expensive than testing for drink-driving, which costs something around 17p or 18p per device. I think that the normal pattern will be to test for drink-driving but, in those cases where drink-driving is not established as the cause of concern, police forces may well choose—on many fewer occasions—to then do a roadside test for drug-driving, the penalties being identical. They can of course always require the individual to go to the police station for a blood test. Indeed, the blood test is always a necessary step when there is a prosecution. With that kind of gradation, police forces should find this to be an affordable strategy. In fact, the feedback that we have is that they are very pleased to have a tool to help them to deal with drug-driving, which is an issue of very significant concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised several issues. I think he has heard me speak many times on the issue of precision in forecasts. I do not think that there is any such thing as precision in forecasts, and I sometimes wonder why we do not generally round numbers up, although in this case we did not go to the right of the decimal point. However, a forecast enables people to get in the ballpark, to use an American term, of what we think that the impact will be. That is an important piece of information to include when we do an assessment.

The noble Lord asked why we have not had a third consultation. I am afraid that I cannot tell him the exact date we decided that it would be too frustrating to go ahead with the third consultation. There was a general awareness that, having asked people the same question twice, we were unlikely to get a different answer when we went back for a third time. Informal consultations had been happening on an ongoing basis, making it even more redundant. However, more to the point, as he will know, the offence came into force under Section 5A on 2 March, and going through a round of consultation and then creating a much greater gap before amphetamines came on to the list seemed the greater evil. A third consultation would essentially confirm the information that had already been extensively received. It strikes me that it was a rather logical decision of the kind that government sometimes does not make.

[Lord Rosser]

My point was that if the conclusion was reached in September 2014 or shortly afterwards that there was no need for a third formal consultation, why have we waited until now to have this order? The second consultation was apparently conducted between 17 December 2013 and 3 January 2014, in something like six weeks over the Christmas and New Year period, so a further consultation could presumably have been completed in something like a month if it was not being held over Christmas and New Year. That is the bit that I cannot quite follow. It seems to have taken a very long time to conclude that a third consultation was not necessary, yet presumably all the information was available.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber so the Committee will stand adjourned for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why we were not at 50 rather than 250 micrograms, what risk there is because we are going with the higher limit and how we got there. Having consulted on these issues twice, it became very evident that there were complex issues involved in setting a limit for amphetamine, more so than with other drugs that we have been working on. If people with ADHD drive unmedicated, and are not therefore trapped by any of these regulations, there is a very high risk that they drive unsafely. That is very much associated with that condition. However, research shows that if they are taking proper medication, they are as safe as the rest of the population. Therefore, it is very important that people with ADHD are entirely comfortable with the idea that they can take their medication and not be excluded from driving and that their doctors know that they can prescribe medication and that those individuals will not be precluded from driving. That was an added degree of complexity in setting these limits.

[Lord Rosser]

Is the argument that if one fixes the limit at 50 micrograms, one is liable to be in a situation where the driving of an individual who is sticking to that limit is likely to be more impaired, for the reasons the Minister just mentioned, than if the limit is fixed at 250 and they are driving with, say, 249?

[Baroness Kramer]

It is only part of the argument because that would be true for ADHD patients. We took the issues back to the expert panel, which clarified that the point at which driving risk becomes significant with amphetamine is 270 micrograms. We did not want to set a line at 270. We wanted to have a little bit of a margin. The medical community felt that doctors could safely prescribe within 250. With 270 defined by the expert panel as the level at which risk would significantly increase, the Government coalesced around the 250 number. Obviously many people looking at enforcement discourage the use of amphetamine at all, and that is one of the attractions of using the lower number. In the process of pursuing all this, we recognised that setting it at 50, which had been one of our early thoughts in this process, was too low. We were not gaining anything in terms of safety, other than the deterrent effect, and we were potentially encouraging wrong decisions by people who have ADHD and need to take medication. They might end up not taking it because of their concerns over the benchmark.

Going back to the expert panel that advised the Secretary of State took a significant amount of time. That is what brought us much closer to this deadline. With the law going into effect on 2 March, it is appropriate for us to come forward with the decision rather than go through a consultation that we have no reason to believe will yield any information that we have not already received in the course of the first two consultations and the informal work that has taken place.

I agree very much that that has been a complicated process. It is difficult to describe and sometimes frustrating to have to listen to, so I apologise for that.

I also have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that—as always—he has picked up on a genuine typo and error within one of the explanatory memoranda, although I am now uncertain which one it is. We can confirm it later. He was talking about the percentage of convictions. The figure 72% applies to 2013—it is a typo in whichever document that said it was 2012. The figure 54% applied to 2012, so it was a failure to change the date from one document to the other. If he would like, I am happy to ask officials to write to him just to provide some clarification. This has been a very good lesson in the need to double check numbers although I have to say that, given the complexity of this, officials have done some brilliant work.

I have covered the key questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I now come to those from my noble friend Lord Dundee who raised the question of how to improve road safety standards here and internationally, with drug-driving as an element of that. In the Deregulation Bill we removed some loopholes around drug-driving and drink-driving provisions that allowed people to disregard roadside screening and insist on a blood test, during which time their levels could have changed. Loopholes like that have been removed within by Deregulation Bill.

I have spoken in debates in the House about whether we should be taking further actions to limit the circumstances in which young or new drivers can drive. It has also been a difficult balancing act because access to training, education and jobs frequently requires young people to drive. Indeed, we also want them to participate in the workplace more generally. The direction that we have chosen to go in is that rather than restricting the passengers they can carry or various other kinds of restrictions, we are looking at trialling work going on now with the insurance companies looking at the use of telematics. I can send the noble Lord all the details. As I have described in the House, telematics is a gizmo which sits in the vehicle and communicates with the insurance company to give an ongoing, running assessment of the quality of driving. Is it speeding, is it rough, is it erratic? All those kinds of behaviour can be fed back into the car itself. Anyone looking to purchase insurance and going on to the various insurance websites will find that if they permit telematics to be installed in their car they will in fact nearly always get a much cheaper insurance package. That looks to be the direction. We are trying to verify that there is a genuine relationship between the feedback from the telematics and safer driving. As we get the answers to that, that may well provide us with the direction to go so that we let young people have their freedom but yet have ways of ensuring that driving standards improve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

I think we have exhausted my capacity for guidance. However, these are important issues. My noble friend is right, the international exchange of information is always significant: we learn from others and share what we learn with others. There is satisfaction in being praised by the WHO for the direction that we have taken. I am sure that others will watch this process as closely as we watch their processes. If my noble friend will indulge me, I will follow up with a letter. That will be more appropriate and will ensure that I am not misleading him or leaving out important information.

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I may establish whether I have understood the point correctly. We support the order and are not opposing it. We have discussed the issue of amphetamine being taken for medical reasons, but do I take it that the Government’s position in relation to people who are not taking it for medical reasons but are taking it illegally is that increasing the limit from 50 to 250 micrograms does not represent a significant worsening of the impairment in the driving of the individual?

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has accurately reflected the circumstances. The advice that we received ultimately from the expert panel after sifting through all the evidence it received is that 270 micrograms per litre of blood moves an individual into the serious risk environment. Therefore, setting the limit at 250 met the test of falling below that level but still allowed doctors to prescribe appropriately to patients with ADHD. We were looking at 50 micrograms but got it wrong. That is why one goes through consultations, to learn and understand. The noble Lord will know that the enforcement community is attracted by 50 micrograms because of its deterrent effect. However, after putting all the pieces together, there is no additional significant risk associated with going from 50 to 250, as we understand it from the expert witnesses.

Cyclists: Safety

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, enforceability is always absolutely crucial. I hesitate to tell cyclists exactly what they should do when there is so much scope for us to make improvements in other areas, and I suggest that we pursue those. Obviously, cycle training matters and addresses many of those issues, and we have invested a great deal in Bikeability.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, asked a question about headphones. I do not think that he got an answer to it and no doubt the noble Baroness the Minister will wish to respond. However, the Government’s Cycling Delivery Plan, published more than a year late, contains no specific targets on increasing the percentage of journeys undertaken by bike from the current level of 2% and no specific long-term funding targets for cycling. Bearing in mind that, following pressure from Labour and cycling organisations, among others, the Infrastructure Act included a requirement to produce a cycling and walking investment strategy, do the Government intend to update the Cycling Delivery Plan by including the specific targets that are currently lacking and to which I have just referred?

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the Government have committed over £588 million to cycling—more than double the previous Government—and that has been absolutely crucial. The cycling and walking investment strategy will require a major piece of work, including a great deal of consultation, to design investment for the future, but our goal is to get to the £10 per head benchmark, which I think is widely accepted as the right number.

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Grand Committee

[Viscount Simon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness the Minister described this very well. It makes perfect sense. It will help maintain the health and safety of very young children. I have only two questions but I do not know whether she will know the answers. How has the new type of child crash-test dummies been changed? How has the new side-impact test been changed again?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Perhaps I may raise just one or two points on these regulations. In particular I refer to the impact assessment. Impact assessments quite often contain little gems that are not actually set out in the Explanatory Memorandum. This impact assessment sets out the policy objectives and states that:

“The policy objective is to reduce the number and seriousness of injuries to child vehicle occupants whilst keeping any additional burden to industry or vehicle users to a proportionate level”.

It goes on to talk about UN-ECE Regulation 129, to which the Minister has referred, as intending to provide additional safety benefits over and above the existing standards. As I understand it, this regulation, which has been accepted by the EU, is not compulsory. However, I note that when the impact assessment goes on to look at the policy options, it sets out the first one as “do nothing”, which is fairly obvious, while the second option would allow the use of regulation 129 covering standard child restraints in vehicles as well as the existing regulation 44 standard. It states that this is the favoured policy option, and that indeed is what the Minister has said.

The assessment then goes on to set out that a third option to require all new child seats sold from the date of implementation to be of regulation 129 standard was dismissed, which is fairly strong language, on the basis that this would go beyond the requirements of the EU directive and would be considered to be gold-plating and not be deliverable. Am I to understand that implementing a directive in a gold-plated way means that you implement it in such a way so as to reduce the number of child fatalities, as well as the number of serious and slight injuries, on the basis, as we are told, that the new restraint under regulation 129 is safer?

Further on in the impact assessment, on page 5, two policy options are set out, excluding the do-nothing one. The second one, which I think is the one that has been dismissed—I should like to know by whom—states:

“Require all new child seats sold from date of implementation (early 2015) to be of Regulation 129 standard”.

It continues:

“This would ensure that all new units sold would be of a higher safety standard, and also ensure that these safer child restraints permeate the market quicker than would be the case under option 1”.

That is the option that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, has said is favoured and is indeed provided for in these regulations. Can the noble Baroness confirm that, given the reference to the fact that this would constitute gold-plating, the definition of “gold-plating” would ensure safer child restraints being required and that they would also,

“permeate the market quicker than would be the case under option 1”?

It would be an interesting example of what gold-plating means. Perhaps a rather happier wording could have been used in the impact assessment instead of this enthusiasm for dismissing something as gold-plating. It might have been a bit more open to have said, “Yes, we have made a decision not to go for the safest option, the one that would reduce the number of fatalities, serious and slight injuries. We have decided to go for the option that does not make it compulsory but which we recognise might not achieve the same reduction in fatalities and injuries to young children”. As that is my understanding, I think it would have been better if it had been put in that way rather than this enthusiasm for using the word “gold-plating”.

I also notice that the option which was looked at was the one that would:

“Require all new child seats sold from the date of implementation (early 2015) to be of Regulation 129 standard”.

If I have understood this impact assessment correctly, it estimates that, without it being a requirement, the take-up of the enhanced car seats will still be between 70% and 100% by 2020, with what is described as a “best uptake of 85%”. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is the case. If it is expected that there will nevertheless still be a high uptake of child restraints that conform to the higher standard set by UN-ECE Regulation 129 over a period of five years, why was it not considered that the second option—a requirement that all new child seats sold from the date of implementation are to be of regulation 129 standard—should be brought into force in two, three, four or five years’ time? At least we would then have had a guarantee that it was going to come in.

I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but, as I understand it, under these regulations there is no date when it will actually become the required standard. If we are expecting such a high uptake of the new, higher-standard child restraint by 2020, what is the objection to saying to what would appear to be the relatively low percentage that would not conform to the higher standard that, by that time, you will have to conform to the higher standard? I do not understand why that has not been incorporated into the regulations. I can appreciate why the regulations do not require everyone to conform from early 2015 but, bearing in mind the high uptake that is expected, I do not understand why there is nothing in the order to say that from a certain date—two, three, four, five years’ ahead—it will become the required standard.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, perhaps I may respond first to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. Currently, there is not a side impact test; that now comes in with the new regulations. The dummies will be designed so that they demonstrate the damage that comes with a side impact test. If there is further information on the dummies that I have not mentioned, I will gladly write to him and let him know.

On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, essentially about why the new seat is not mandatory or why we do not have a date for its becoming mandatory, it is possible that the documentation has not been clear. Part of the new standard does not fit in to the car by use of a seat-belt. It requires an Isofix point to be built in, which is deemed to be a safer way for a seat to be anchored. That standard became mandatory for new cars from 2012. It would have been seen in many new cars built from around 2006 and even in some from before then, but obviously many cars that parents own date from an earlier period and therefore do not have an Isofix anchor embedded in them. If we were to make this mandatory today, we would effectively be requiring parents to go out and purchase a new car when they simply want to purchase a car seat. That really is an unacceptable burden.

There will be demand from parents who have older cars or cars which do not have the Isofix fitting to purchase a seat for their child. We are satisfied that the current standard is very safe. That does not mean that we do not want to pursue opportunities to increase the measure of safety. I described earlier the side-impact benefit and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, followed up on it. We recognise that existing car seats provide a great deal of safety for children, so we do not feel that it is necessary to tell parents that they have to buy a new car in order to buy a seat that meets the new standard.

We accept that over time, as they replace their cars and their car seats, parents will follow the new standards, but this means that there is a period of time when we need to have both standards operating in parallel. To put in a date would in fact be artificial. It is sensible to do all we can to encourage the take-up of the new car seats in vehicles which can take the fitting. It will be a matter of parent choice, but the majority of parents want the car seat that provides their child with the greatest protection. It is also true to say that as the volume of sales of the new car seats goes up—they are currently more expensive than the current car seats—the price will inevitably come down as economies of scale kick in.

I think that we will see a very good take-up of these new car seats, but to make it mandatory would place a burden on some families for whom the purchase of a new car would be exceedingly difficult. What we do not want is for anybody to be tempted not to use a car seat because the only one that they can legally purchase cannot be fitted into the car they already have. I think that the noble Lord will recognise that. Over time, we can see what is happening with the turnover of cars; that is not something that is ideally predictable. It will be possible at some point to remove the earlier standard and simply go with the new standard because there will have been sufficient turnover in the car fleet. I hope, with that understanding that this is a sensible way that does not place an extraordinary burden on families—

[Lord Rosser]

Am I to take it that the cost of changing an existing car and thus enabling it to take the new fitting or arrangement is either prohibitive or just not technically feasible?

[Baroness Kramer]

I am not an expert in whether one can easily retrofit an Isofix fitting—it has a top tether anchorage point. According to the information I have just been given, it is not possible to retrofit into a car, so it is a case of buying a car in which this fitting is part of the original design of the car, because it is so fundamental.

[Lord Rosser]

That is less a comment about not wanting to gold-plate an EU directive than it is actually saying that in relation to existing cars it is not possible to do it anyway. The Minister has said that it is not a question of cost, but that you actually cannot do it.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, the order follows a good deal of consultation and makes some relatively small but important changes to the renewable transport fuel obligation scheme—the RTFO. The changes would improve consistency in the way the RTFO treats two different types of biodiesel, and would encourage investment in renewable gaseous fuels. The RTFO is a certificate trading scheme that places an obligation on suppliers of fossil fuels in the UK to ensure that certain amounts of sustainable biofuel are supplied. The obligation can be met by redeeming renewable transport fuel certificates known as RTFCs. Their value is determined by the market, and trading them provides a financial reward for those supplying renewable transport fuel.

The RTFO order was amended in 2011 to ensure that only biofuels meeting mandatory sustainability criteria were rewarded with RTFCs. The 2011 amendment also introduced new requirements on suppliers to report on the sustainability of the biofuel being supplied and for this to be assured through independent verification. In April last year we published our response to a call for evidence on additional support mechanisms for advanced and more sustainable fuels. At the same time, we concluded a post-implementation review of the RTFO scheme. The review considered the extent to which the RTFO had achieved its objectives to support the supply of sustainable biofuels in the UK. The review also noted the significant achievements made by the UK biofuel industry to date.

Since the RTFO was introduced in 2008, savings in greenhouse gas emissions, excluding impacts from indirect land use change, have increased from 46% to reach 69% in 2013-14. The most recent statistics also showed that 46% of biofuels supplied in the UK were made from a waste or residue such as used cooking oil, which does not compete for land with food crops. A further public consultation on the proposed changes to the RTFO order we are considering today ran in the summer of 2014.

This small group of amendments aims to build on the RTFO scheme’s success and deliver two important commitments. The amendments will, first, provide consistency in respect of how we treat renewable fuels under the RTFO by aligning the treatment of two particular types of biodiesel; and, secondly, encourage investment in the development of emerging renewable transport technologies such as sustainable renewable gaseous fuels, by adjusting the reward provided to reflect their higher energy content relative to liquid biofuels.

Hydotreated vegetable oil, or HVO, and fatty acid methyl ester, or FAME, are both renewable fuels that can be blended with diesel. The biological feedstocks used in the HVO process are similar to those used for FAME: for example, vegetable or plant oils and waste animal fats. In both the FAME and HVO processes, a secondary, non-biological feedstock is used and incorporated into the final fuel. For FAME, this is methanol derived from natural gas, while for HVO it is hydrogen produced from natural gas. However, although FAME is deemed to be 100% renewable in calculating the reward of RTFCs, HVO is currently not. The effect of the order would be to provide for HVO to be treated in the same way as FAME. This is in line with our emerging understanding of how HVO should be treated under the renewable energy directive and is consistent with the approach in other EU member states to these two types of biodiesel.

Our policy aim for gaseous fuels is to level the playing field for renewable gaseous and liquid fuels. Doing so provides a clear signal that the UK Government will provide a positive investment climate for those looking to supply renewable gaseous fuels in the HGV and other sectors. Renewable gaseous fuels are currently rewarded at one RTFC per kilogram of fuel supplied, and liquid renewable fuels at one RTFC per litre. However, the energy contained in a kilogram of gaseous fuel is generally higher than the energy found in a litre of liquid fuel. The draft order would provide that 1.9 RTFCs per kilogram would be rewarded for biomethane and 1.75 RTFCs per kilogram for both biopropane and biobutane. As is the case now, double the amount of RTFCs would be awarded where the fuel is produced from wastes or residues.

I am aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reasonably advised the House that the order may imperfectly deliver the policy, due to uncertainties highlighted by the department in our cost-benefit analysis. I will address the concern that has been raised. The range of costs and benefits is essentially determined by which sort of biodiesel will be displaced by extra RTFCs going to renewable gaseous fuel. We are estimating discounted carbon-reduction benefits of £2.65 million, assuming a 50:50 spilt in the displacement of biodiesel from waste versus biodiesel from crop.

Waste-derived biodiesel is incentivised by being awarded twice the number of certificates per litre compared to crop-based biodiesel. As a consequence, it is a more cost-effective option in meeting the obligation. There would only be a carbon cost should a significant volume of waste-derived biodiesel be displaced—and then only if approaching 60% of the displacement was of waste-derived biodiesel.

As biodiesel from waste is the cheaper option to meet the obligation, and is in limited supply, we fully expect that biodiesel from crop would be displaced by increased rewards for renewable gaseous fuels. This means that the carbon savings for 2015 to 2020 are likely to be towards the higher end of those estimated in our cost-benefit analysis central scenario—nearer the £16 million benefit end of the scale. Further, I stress that we have limited options to decarbonise the heavy goods sector, and I believe that, in the long term, renewable gaseous fuels will be an important element in meeting our carbon-reduction targets.

The draft order will also introduce two measures to support effective administration. The first would update and streamline the powers of the RTFO administrator to require information. The second measure would put it beyond doubt that the administrator can apply mathematical rounding as part of calculating the number of RTFCs it issues.

Biofuels have proved a complex and controversial topic over the years. However, we know that vehicles are going to continue to require liquid and gaseous fuels for decades to come. We therefore need to develop technologies and capacity to produce low-carbon fuels in the UK, to reduce emissions from road transport and to encourage sustainable growth and jobs.

The proposed changes in the draft order are supported by stakeholders and make a number of worthwhile improvements in that direction. I know that the industry and investors would like to see greater certainty on the pathway to meeting the 2020 transport renewable energy target. The Committee will be pleased to hear that, in anticipation of measures to address indirect land use change—ILUC—being agreed in Europe later this year, we have been working with a very broad group of interested parties through our Transport Energy Task Force on precisely how to improve the investment climate. The group will report to Ministers in the coming months. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The only issue that I wished to raise—and I am sure that the Minister will hardly be surprised—was the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the concerns it expressed. I had intended to mention them in order to give the Minister the opportunity to put the Government’s response on the record. She has, of course, already done that in her introductory comments.

In the light of the Minister’s speech, it rather begs the question why the three different scenarios of low, central and high were drawn up for the period 2015-20, given that, as I understand from her speech, she is almost dismissing at least one, if not two, of those scenarios as being based on unrealistic modelling assumptions. If she is so sure that the issue raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—that this is about not just a range of carbon savings but a range covering both carbon savings and carbon costs—will not be the case, why did we end up with a cost-benefit analysis that contained those projections? What is the case for having projections that the Government apparently do not believe for one minute are likely to occur? I would be grateful if she will address that point.

One of the things that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said, in paragraph 28, was:

“The central scenario assumes an increase in the size of the HGV fleet able to use gaseous fuel from the current 500 to 7,400 by 2020, that 12.5% of fuel used is renewable gaseous fuel and a 50/50 displacement split between the two types of biofuels. These are modelling assumptions. They do not as the CBA explains … ‘represent today’s mix of biofuels’”.

I am grateful to the Minister for having set out the Government’s response straight away, but I am still a little puzzled about why we have ended up with a document that has raised scenarios which, as I understand it from the Minister’s speech, the Government are now saying are extremely unlikely. Why include them in the first place if the Government do not believe that they are going to happen? What is the answer the point made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the 50/50 displacement split between two types of biofuels does not actually represent today’s mix of biofuels?

[Baroness Kramer]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his comments. It is standard practice to look at a range of impacts in developing forecasts. I came out of business, and the department very much follows the same pattern of talking to the industry and all the various relevant groups whose behaviour can impact on those forecasts and coming up with a forecast that seems reasonable and likely and in which it has a high level of confidence. In this case, from the perspective of the department, it was considered to be quite a conservative estimate. It was chosen as what could be called the central forecast in which the department has the greatest level of confidence, based on the work, research and analysis that it has done.

It is also standard practice to then say, “What if we were wrong?”, and to look at both a more pessimistic range and at what would happen if we could, reasonably, be more optimistic about the behaviour of certain factors. I would hate to see the department, in doing its analysis, simply going with the forecast in which it had the greatest confidence, without presenting, for other people to consider, what the impact would be of variations in the underlying factors, both downwards and upwards. That is fairly standard and a wise way to present issues. It is also a way to tease out concerns that then have to be answered.

The answer to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is that the department is convinced that all the logic and the discussions with all the various players indicate that the form of fuel most likely to be displaced is crop-based biodiesel rather than waste-based biodiesel, and because of that, the department has a great deal of confidence in the carbon benefits. Again, we raised those issues to discuss the cost-benefit analysis, as I think was entirely appropriate.

[Lord Rosser]

I asked the Minister about the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which ends up saying:

“For this reason, we draw this Order to the special attention of the House on the ground that it may”—

may, not will—

“imperfectly achieve its policy objective”.

Is that a view with which the Government agree or disagree:

“it may imperfectly achieve its policy objective”?

[Baroness Kramer]

The Government have a high degree of confidence in their central forecast. I have never seen forecasts turn out exactly right, to the right-hand side of the decimal point. Forecasting is an attempt to look into and understand the future, so it is never a perfect science. It is right that that is always recognised. The noble Lord will also recognise that biodiesel and biofuel prices will always be volatile in this industry. That affects the trend, and there will be variance year on year in actual behaviour. It is right that there is always an element of uncertainty in forecasting, but it is also right to use the research, the analysis and the discussion with the industry to come up with the scenario in which one has the greatest confidence. That is what I think the department has, entirely appropriately, done. It has shaped and presented its policy on that basis. Given that understanding that it would be sheer arrogance to present only one scenario without considering both upside and downside, this is a considered policy that I think, generally, has been widely welcomed by all players and participants.

I also point out that the amendment makes only a small change to the current market for RTFCs. Although we are concerned to make sure that our modelling is as good as it can be and that it does not have the arrogance to ignore the fact that there are variances and volatilities, we also recognise that, were either the upside or the downside scenario to prove to be the one that actually played out, the impact would be relatively small because this is only a very small change in the current market for RTFCs.

I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will feel that the Government have taken a rational approach and that he will feel capable of supporting the order.