Railways: Bridge Strikes

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am not wholly sure where the noble Lord got the figure of £23 million a year, but I would point out that costs are not necessarily met by the taxpayer; it depends on the circumstances. If liability rests with a vehicle driver, the costs will be recovered through insurance, and Network Rail has been successful in recovering large amounts for both infrastructure repair and compensation in the past.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Road Haulage Association promotes the use of specialised lorry satellite navigation devices, which give bridge heights. Do the Government plan to take any steps to help promote their use more widely, or even make it a requirement that they be fitted and used in a similar way to tachographs? If they do not do so already, could such devices not also be adapted to give a warning to drivers approaching bridges that are lower than the height of their truck and trailer?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that technology will provide at least some of the answers to the problems we currently face. As he will know, Network Rail often installs special technology on some of the more bashed bridges that measures the height of the approaching vehicle and then flashes up “Turn Back” signs. Of course, we are very happy to work with the freight associations—and indeed we do—on ensuring that HGV drivers are fully aware of the technology available to them both in their cab and on the roads.

International Travel Rules

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is not possible to travel to France without the need for quarantine and all the costs and upheaval that involves, as France, following a sudden decision, is now in a separate subcategory of amber-list countries. As one Conservative MP put it when this UQ was discussed in the Commons,

“public confidence in going abroad is now in a ditch”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/21; col. 679.]

Another Conservative MP said,

“the further restrictions for France stretch both the credibility of the system and the patience of the travel industry. The whole industry … continues to watch as its reserves are dried up”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/21; col. 685.]

The travel industry was promised a rescue deal, which has never materialised. When do the Government intend to give this important industry the support that it needs, as we have called for, and as the shadow Secretary of State demanded again in the Commons on Monday, to which there was no response from the Minister?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talks about the decision that we had to make on France, which of course was not made lightly. We have in place a good traffic-light system which enables us to categorise countries according to risk and, therefore, travel can happen accordingly. However, we have also reduced requirements for people who have had double vaccinations in order to travel to amber countries. That is of great benefit to the travel companies and I am sure that they will take advantage of that opportunity.

Transport Decarbonisation

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The Climate Change Committee recently commented on the need for a proper plan from the Government to deliver on their net-zero targets. Britain is behind on its goal for a 78% cut to greenhouse gases by 2035. Transport is now the biggest contributor to UK emissions. In the decade 2009-19, transport emissions fell by 1% only and there is no detail in this delayed decarbonisation plan to show how it will address the problem in the transport sector of the ever-greater pace that is now needed.

The Government now appear to be further upgrading targets on which they are already behind. Diesel and petrol lorries are to be banned in Britain by 2040 and all types of transport will be decarbonised by 2050, yet zero-emissions heavy lorries are still an aspiration rather than a reality, according to the Road Haulage Association. It is not clear who is going to meet the bill for this transition or what it is likely to be.

The Government have committed themselves to net-zero internal UK flights by 2040 but, once again, there is a gap between aspiration and reality with regard to sustainable aviation fuels and hydrogen aircraft delivering by 2040, and overcoming the need to fly less to achieve targets. Again, there is the issue of who will foot the bill for the transition and what it is likely to be. Rather than take urgent action to electrify rail, the Government cancel or defer electrification schemes. Rather than support consumers to purchase electric vehicles and create a nationwide network of electric vehicle charging points, the Government, once again, delay key decisions on all these crucial issues.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee said that the UK faces a “huge challenge” to get to 100% electric car sales by the target date, and commented on the lack of any kind of government plan to manage this major transition. That includes a plan for charging infrastructure, in particular to address the serious disparity in charger availability across the regions, and for sufficient publicly accessible chargers across the country, as a third of UK households with cars park on the street.

We will not be able to reach net-zero emissions without properly supporting the shift to electric vehicles, yet the amount given out to local authorities to fund charge point installation more than halved last year. What are the Government doing to ramp up the rollout of charging infrastructure in the UK? Will they support our plans to provide interest-free loans to help drivers purchase electric vehicles? Why are the Government allowing the sale of new polluting hybrids until 2035, which means they will be on our roads for many years to come?

During the pandemic, large numbers of people took advantage of quieter streets to take up cycling—many for the first time. Surely, we want to embed this behavioural change in seeking to reduce emissions, so why have the Government been so slow to release the funding for active travel they promised last year?

There is also little that is new in the plan to promote walking or cycling, or to help our public transport services recover after a devastating 16 months, during which the Government seem to have done their utmost to revive travel by car and supress travel by bus and rail. The continued wearing of face masks would help restore confidence in travel by train and bus. Instead, the Government say there is no longer requirement to do so and it is just tough on other people who are deterred from travelling as a result. It is contradictory of the Government to talk about reducing emissions from aviation when they are looking at reducing air passenger duty and have instigated inflation-busting increases in rail fares, and to say they are serious about reducing road traffic emissions when they have been promoting a £27 billion road-building programme.

Road transport in the UK releases the same amount of greenhouse gases as it did in 1990. A recent analysis by the consumer group Which? also found that train fares on eight out of 10 popular UK routes were some 50% more expensive than plane fares, despite 80% lower carbon dioxide emissions. The cross-party Environmental Justice Commission has published a manifesto for hitting targets for net-zero carbon emissions, which includes a recommendation to upgrade local public transport. What is the Government’s policy on the future level of rail fares compared to other more polluting forms of transport? What is the Government’s decarbonisation policy on local transport fares? Do the Government agree with the Climate Change Committee that investment in roads should be contingent on their compatibility with the UK’s net-zero target? If so, why are they pressing ahead with their £27 billion road-building programme, or are they now reviewing it?

The decarbonisaton plan refers to numerous consultation exercises on achieving the targets, which would appear to be an admission in itself that there is as yet no clear and credible policy on what exactly needs to be done and by whom, and at what cost and to whom, to deliver these targets. On the transport front, the Government surely also have to create an acceptance across the nation as a whole to walk, cycle and use public transport more and to drive less if we are to play our part in limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. The Secretary of State said in the Commons last week:

“We want to make public transport, cycling and walking the natural first choice for all who can use them.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/21; col. 406.]


The plan does not spell out how this objective will be achieved, what needs to change or how to bring it about.

Recent catastrophic climate events in Canada, America and across the channel in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands have shown the true urgency of the need to address climate change now, not tomorrow. Setting dates and making assumptions about the pace and extent of technological advances to deliver in line with aspirational target dates does not constitute a carefully thought-through policy that sets out hard and credible evidence in support of the plan’s projections and assumptions or a realistic assessment of the welcome increase in British jobs that should be created. Government rhetoric and aspiration are no substitute for firm, specific and credible policy. We have again had the former in this decarbonisaton plan; we still await the arrival of the latter.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, there is no doubting the need for this transport decarbonisation plan and for that reason it is welcome. Transport is now the biggest single source of CO₂ emissions in the UK. Other sectors have managed significant reductions over recent decades, but improvements on transport have been marginal. That is the worrying thing about this plan, because it relies far too heavily on technological solutions. I looked in vain for reference to some of the more difficult choices that are needed.

The Statement reminds us that we are running out of time to tackle climate change and refers to the need to

“take decisive and radical action now”.

Then it goes on to promise that we can all carry on doing the same things: we can still fly to go on holiday, for instance, and technology will come to the rescue by 2050. The events of the last few weeks should surely have taught us that this is a climate emergency. As Canada burns and hundreds drown in Germany and Belgium, surely we must wake up to the need for rapid change.

The Statement has an almost fairytale quality to it, with far too many vapid “world-first” and world-beating references, which undermine the genuinely good aspects of this document. When it comes to transport decarbonisation, we are not in the world’s top tier. Noble Lords need not believe me on all this; the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has complained of too many long-term targets and a lack of short-term milestones, which are essential to make them meaningful.

The Rail Delivery Group makes the point that, if the Government want people to make greener travel choices, they must make use of the levers they have at their disposal to motivate public action. Rail, for instance, carries 10% of passenger miles but only 1.4% of transport emissions, so it is a climate-change winner; but only 38% of the network is electrified. Amazingly, the Government are currently consulting on cutting domestic air passenger duty. The RDG estimates that just a 50% cut in APD would lead to almost a quarter of a million fewer long-distance train journeys, with people shifting to flying as the cheaper option, leading to an additional 27,000 tonnes of carbon emissions.

The Government should use tax levers to make flying less attractive, not more. Funding for railways needs to concentrate on cheaper tickets, simpler fare structures and on making it easier to walk up and go. France has legislated to prevent short-distance flights for journeys under two and a half hours by rail, and the UK should follow this lead. The Government’s first priority must be to use taxation and their own policies to get us back on the buses and trains, which are by far the most carbon-efficient means of transport. That means subsidies, ending the ridiculous 10-year freeze on fuel duty and a change in taxation.

The Government need to look beyond the transport industry to taxation on sources of power. The rail industry is being penalised for moving from diesel to electric and now pays 40% of its electricity costs in taxes, whereas 10 years ago it was only 12%. Meanwhile, air passengers pay a much smaller proportion of their fares as climate-related costs. The Government still have a £27 billion road-building programme, which simply must be reviewed if their plan is to be credible. With their current targets, there will still be many petrol and diesel cars on our roads into 2050 and beyond. The pandemic has encouraged us all back to our cars and we need the Government to be bold to reverse that.

Technology has its place, and there may well be occasional bonuses to be derived from unexpected advances, but it cannot be the sole answer. The Government cannot shirk from grappling with the difficult behaviour change in choices. They can dream up all the targets they like, but they are meaningless unless the Government develop a sense of urgency, stop promising us lots of goodies and start actually doing something.

Railways: East Coast Main Line

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]]

The Government have already invested, and are investing, billions of pounds in the railway system, including in the north-east. The noble Baroness mentioned once again the changes to the services in Berwick, and I will not dwell on that because I believe I have covered it, but I will say that there always difficult decisions to make. For example, Edinburgh gets more services out of this, which improves union connectivity. Edinburgh will have additional, faster trains to London. There will be a four-hour journey time. That will be highly competitive versus taking an aircraft.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

As part of these proposed timetable changes, which LNER says

“involve a series of trade-offs,”

services on the TransPennine Express between Newcastle and Manchester will be reduced from twice an hour to once an hour, and an increase in the frequency of services between Teesside, Sunderland and Newcastle will be postponed. Given that Northern Powerhouse Rail has still not been confirmed, is this not further evidence that the Government are backing off from increasing direct interconnectivity of northern cities? Is it not unfortunate that, in the trade-offs, local and regional services would lose out to increase services to London and the south-east?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]]

I am not entirely sure that the evidence supports the noble Lord’s last comment, but I accept that there are difficult trade-offs. Railway capacity is not expandable immediately, so one always has to work with the capacity available. We have spent £4 billion on upgrading the infrastructure and the rolling stock. We must make sure that we use that capacity to best effect. As I have already said, there would be a significant increase in revenues from these proposals.

Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship) (Bilge Alarm) Regulations 2021

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on securing this debate. These regulations came into force on 30 June, following the sinking of the vessel “Abigail H” at Heysham in November 2008, introducing new regulations on the installation of bilge water alarms on merchant vessels of a certain size to provide warning when the accumulation of bilge water threatens their buoyancy or safety. As we have heard, there has been a long gap between the 2008 incident and the introduction of these regulations, suggesting that the Government have been slow to act to prevent similar accidents.

The Maritime Accident Investigation Branch, which said that the crew of the “Abigail H”

“were extremely fortunate to escape without injury”,

made recommendations in 2009, including that vessels greater than 24 metres in length but less than 500 gross tonnes be fitted with bilge alarms. In 2020 the Maritime and Coastguard Agency consulted on proposed regulations intended to introduce a requirement in line with the MAIB recommendation. Just two responses were received, one from a marine surveyor and the other from the Law Society of Scotland. Can the Government comment on the significance or otherwise of the low number of responses? Is it a reflection of the length of time—over a decade—between the MAIB recommendations on the specific incident involving the “Abigail H” and the consultation on the subsequent regulations?

The regulations that we are discussing have now followed, largely unchanged, from the consultation exercise. The intended outcome of the regulations, as we know, is that all ships greater than 24 metres and less than 500 gross tonnes will have to be fitted with a bilge-water detection and alarm system that will alert the crew to any ingress of water so that any necessary action can be taken. This requirement will apply to new ships from the date the regulations come into force and to existing ships from a year later. The requirement covers relevant UK ships, wherever located, and applies to all other relevant ships when within UK waters.

Can the Minister confirm the anticipated cost per vessel of implementing the terms of these regulations? Currently, vessels that are under 500 gross tonnes and are 24 or more metres in length fall outside the requirements of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and existing workboat and fishing vessels codes. The lack of regulations for these vessels has led to accidents, including the sinking of the “Abigail H”. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee queried why the regulations had taken this length of time to implement, given that the “Abigail H” sank in 2008 and the MAIB recommendations were made a year later, in 2009.

In response, the Department for Transport indicated that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, an executive agency of the DfT, continually reviews the priority of the regulatory changes needed, then added:

“As only a relatively small number of vessels are in scope of this proposal, it was initially viewed as disproportionate to advance this regulatory package on its own.”


I may be interpreting these words harshly but they sound suspiciously like saying, in a more roundabout way, that administrative convenience in bringing forward these regulations took priority over ensuring the safety of vessels affected and their crews as soon as possible. The Explanatory Memorandum talks about exploring “alternatives to mandatory regulation”, but that does not explain away a delay of over 11 years. Can the Minister comment on my interpretation of the meaning of the words used by the Department for Transport?

The SLSC noted that 425 ships of a similar type to the “Abigail H” are listed on the UK Ship Register, and that nine instances of flooding on such ships have been reported to the MAIB since 1996. As a result, the committee said:

“We do not regard 425 as a negligible number of ships and crews and it is a matter of concern that the DfT has failed to follow up promptly the MAIB’s safety recommendations.”


Can the Minister say whether the Department for Transport regards 425 as a negligible number of ships and crews? How many, if any, of the 425 ships now already have the required bilge-water detection and alarm system fitted?

The SLSC referred to

“an acknowledged backlog of international marine legislation”

that the DfT has yet to implement, and added:

“As this recommendation in relation to bilge alarms comes from a UK source, it would appear that there is also a separate backlog of domestic legislation yet to be implemented”—


an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The SLSC has said it wishes to see a fuller explanation of why the department has not dedicated more resources to resolving this long-standing backlog problem, which it initially aimed to address by 2020, as well as an explanation setting out the extent of the remaining backlog and how long it is estimated that it will take to clear it completely.

Could the Government in their reply respond to all the SLSC’s requests for information and explanation I just mentioned on the legislative backlog? Is the backlog related only to international marine legislation or is there also a backlog of domestic legislation? If so, what is its extent and by when will it be cleared?

Like my noble friend Lord Rooker, I would like answers to the questions I have raised either today or subsequently in writing. We await the Government’s response, but if the background picture to these regulations is broadly as has been set out then we will support my noble friend if he decides to seek a vote on his regret Motion, albeit, like my noble friend, we support the regulations themselves.

Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose and content of the regulations. It was very helpful and almost led me to rewrite parts of what I am going to say.

Before I go any further, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, on noticing that he had been given 10 minutes to speak, compared with me, who has six minutes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who also has six minutes. I hope that the Government Chief Whip will at some stage explain why this state of affairs happened. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, wondered whether it would ever happen again; I assure him that precisely the same thing does happen again in the next SI we have to deal with.

I also noted the noble Lord’s comments about the possibility of through trains between the north and Europe. I suspect that I am in the same boat as him in wondering why it is not possible to link up HS2 and HS1; the situation at the moment appears to be that there will not necessarily be a link.

I come back to the regulations, which, as the Explanatory Memorandum states,

“provide for the continued recognition of EEA issued rail operator licences … for the Channel Tunnel and the cross-border area”

and

“make the necessary amendments to domestic rail legislation to support the implementation of a UK-France bilateral agreement on the mutual recognition of rail operator licences”,

which, subject to final checks, is to be implemented and ratified. I, too, look forward to the Minister’s response on what progress is being made in those bilateral discussions.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to

“cross-border operators, both current and prospective”

for whom these regulations are intended

“to provide long-term certainty … regarding the future operator licensing framework for the Channel Tunnel”.

Can the Minister say who the current operators referred to are and whether there are currently any further credible prospective operators on the horizon?

In paragraph 3.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, there is a reference to

“information sharing by the Office of Rail and Road … in respect of holders of railway undertaking licences issued by the ORR”.

The Minister made reference to this matter in her opening comments. Is this sharing of information a regular occurrence? Did she cover all the issues involved in information sharing in her helpful comments, or are there other issues involving information sharing in addition to the ones she mentioned?

As the Minister said, and as the EM explains, the 2005 regulations, which are amended by these regulations,

“introduced the requirement for operators … to hold a Statement of National Regulatory Provisions … SNRPs supplement licensing requirements, for example setting out specific third-party insurance requirements over and above the general licensing requirement for adequate insurance to be maintained.”

The EM states:

“The requirement introduced by the 2005 Regulations … to hold a SNRP will be disapplied by the Regulations for operators relying on such licences to operate services through the Channel Tunnel and up to … Dollands Moor or Ashford International station.”


It says that this change

“is deemed necessary to support the mutual recognition of licences on a fully reciprocal basis.”

Yet it also says this:

“The impact of disapplying this requirement, if any, is expected to be very limited in practice given the very limited geographical scope of the exemption and given that all cross-border operators currently running services through the Channel Tunnel do so on the basis of a UK licence.”


Can the Minister confirm that this change in respect of an SNRP has no impact on the situation as it is at present or on any current operators of services through the tunnel? If I am wrong in thinking that, can she say what current arrangements and current operators are affected and in what way? Can she also say what the change in respect of disapplying the requirement to hold an SNRP will represent from the current position for any future EEA operator of rail services operating services

“through the Channel Tunnel and up to (but not beyond) Dollands Moor or Ashford International station”?

Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum states that

“the transitory provisions … which provide for the continued recognition of European licences in Great Britain”

will continue in force

“until they expire at 11pm on 31 January 2022.”

It also says that the “current EU contingency legislation”, which provides for the continued recognition of GB operator licences in the French half of the tunnel and immediately beyond,

“expires on 30 September 2021”.

Paragraph 7.8 of the draft Explanatory Memorandum states:

“If … the bilateral agreement is only ratified by both sides after the expiry period of the transitory provisions, the Regulations provide for the amendments to the transitory provisions not to take effect, as the transitory provisions will themselves be spent by that point.”


What happens at midnight on 30 September 2021, when the EU contingency legislation expires, if the bilateral agreement has not been ratified by then by both sides, and what happens at 11 pm on 31 January 2022, when the transitory provisions on the continued recognition in Great Britain of European licences cease to have effect, if the bilateral agreement has not been ratified by then by both sides?

Like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I await the Government’s response to the points that have been made in this debate with interest.

Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) and the Biofuel (Labelling) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I once again thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose and content of these regulations. As she said, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, premium petrol in the UK is currently blended with up to 5% ethanol, known as E5 grade. These regulations require the ethanol content to be increased to up to 10%, E10 grade, with effect from 1 September this year, to meet future emissions targets. E10 petrol has been approved for sale in the UK since 2011 but no supplier has chosen to move above 5%.

The E10 petrol requirement will apply only to filling stations with an annual fuel throughput of over 1 million litres per annum. What percentage of petrol sales by litres is through filling stations with an annual fuel throughput of 1 million litres or less per annum?

The E10 requirement is that premium 95 grade petrol contains at least 5.5% ethanol all year round, but how does that help us reach blending of up to 10% in a meaningful way? What is the Government’s objective with these regulations as far as the E10 level of blending with ethanol is concerned, because 5.5% seems an inadequate increase from the current requirement?

As the Minister said, biofuel blending levels are generally driven by a separate government scheme, the renewable transport fuel obligation, with the next RTFO increases planned for 1 January next year. The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that during the period between these regulations taking effect on 1 September 2021 and the RTFO amendments in January 2022, the policy will cost the motorist around £87 million per year and decrease CO₂ savings. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee queried why the start of these regulations could not be aligned with the complementary increase in the RTFO targets from 1 January next year, or alternatively why the date of the RTFO target increase could not be changed.

The committee accepted that the Department for Transport’s response on these two points was persuasive but said it would have been even more convincing if the relative costs of the extra disruption to the industry

“were estimated for comparison with the impact on the consumer and on CO₂ savings.”

Can the Government now provide that estimate of the relative costs of the extra disruption to the industry if the existing schemes were synchronised for this changeover?

The SLSC commented that while the Explanatory Memorandum indicates a negative impact on consumers during the changeover period, the impact assessment indicates that, due to lead times, the effects of implementing the two regulations separately may not be as great as they first appear. The committee said that the reply on this point from the Department for Transport made the consequences of transition to E10 less clear, and suggested that this House might wish to ask the Minister for a clearer view of the effects of introducing the two sets of regulations three months apart. I am now asking the Minister for that clearer view.

The SLSC said that issues raised in the impact assessment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has said, had been glossed over in the Explanatory Memorandum on the instrument—issues such as the role of E10 in propping up the UK’s struggling ethanol production sector, the comparative CO₂ savings from ethanol and other biofuels, and the long-term costs to motorists as E10 delivers lower miles per gallon.

On the UK’s ethanol production sector, capacity has regularly been seriously underutilised. Significant amounts of bioethanol supplied under the RTFO come from outside the UK. UK producers have said that if the UK does not introduce E10, it is likely that the domestic industry may not remain viable. Could the Government spell out in their response, with some specific facts and figures, the impact of E10 on the UK’s ethanol production sector?

The SLSC commented that the Explanatory Memorandum was based on the assumption that increased ethanol content by changing to E10 was the only way forward. However, the impact assessment indicates that the greenhouse gas savings from the additional ethanol are lower than the savings from other biofuels such as waste-derived biodiesel, but concludes that, provided that the RTFO target is suitably adjusted, E10 will result in longer-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Could the Government explain why blending petrol with ethanol is perceived as the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gases, taking account of all the environmental considerations to which reference has been made?

The Explanatory Memorandum appears to suggest that the additional costs to motorists of the switch from E5 to E10 will be transitional, since those costs and the decrease in CO₂ savings will be only until the RTFO targets can be increased, yet the impact assessment indicates there will be significant long-term costs to consumers because E10 fuel is less efficient. The impact assessment concludes that fuel costs for petrol cars are estimated to increase by 2.3% as a result of moving from 5% to 10% ethanol content, meaning additional fuel-supply costs to consumers of E10 petrol of £701 million over 10 years because of the reduced miles per gallon. Further costs of £169 million over 10 years are estimated for consumers whose vehicles will accept only E5 petrol. Could the Government clarify what the position is? Are the additional costs to motorists transitional until RTFO targets can be increased, as per the Explanatory Memorandum, or are they long-term, as per the impact assessment?

Lastly, the SLSC concludes that the Explanatory Memorandum presents a rather sketchy view of the rationale for, and the consequences of, the proposed change to E10 petrol, and recommends that whenever the policy requires an impact assessment it should be made available alongside the published draft, which did not happen in respect of these regulations. What consideration have the Government given to this recommendation from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee?

Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, CO₂ emission performance standards set a maximum average level of CO₂ emissions for new cars and vans, broken down into specific targets for each individual manufacturer. This issue of new car and van CO₂ emissions was originally included in the Northern Ireland protocol, which meant that Northern Ireland would continue to align with EU regulations on this aspect in accordance with annex 2.

However, on 17 December last year, the UK-EU joint committee made a decision to remove two regulations covering emissions from the protocol, which meant that Northern Ireland was no longer expected to align with the EU on those regulations and could instead align with the Great Britain regime, making it a UK regime. The reason given by the joint committee was that the regulations relating to emissions of new cars and vans

“do not relate to the placing on the market of such vehicles in the Union. They should therefore be removed from Annex 2 to the Protocol”.

Removing these two regulations from the protocol, as the European Scrutiny Committee report says, also ensures that

“vehicles in Northern Ireland will not count toward EU manufacturer CO₂ targets, and may count toward UK manufacturer CO₂ targets instead. This clarifies Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market.”

These regulations—I too thank the Minister for her introductory comments—extend the existing GB regime to cover Northern Ireland as well, now that Northern Ireland is no longer covered by the EU regulations on this issue. This will enable the UK Government to regulate CO₂ emissions from newly registered cars and vans in Northern Ireland in the same way as currently regulated in Great Britain, effective from 1 September this year.

We are supportive of the UK-EU joint committee as a forum for finding practical solutions and agreement over issues with the protocol, and that the Government must work through the joint committee, which they do not always do. I have one or two questions to ask and clarifications to seek. The Explanatory Memorandum states that, because the two regulations covering emissions were removed so late from the Northern Ireland protocol, in mid-December last year,

“Northern Ireland currently has no CO2 regulations for new cars and vans, meaning”,

as others have pointed out,

“manufacturers are free to sell highly polluting vehicles in Northern Ireland without restriction.”

Can the Minister say whether the selling of highly polluting vehicles in Northern Ireland actually happened, as the regulations we are debating, which cover Northern Ireland, do not come into effect until 1 September this year? Can the Government also say why these regulations, which will cover Northern Ireland, could not have been brought into effect much earlier than 1 September 2021, or, alternatively, why the regulations applicable in Northern Ireland could not have remained in the protocol until 1 September 2021, when the regulations we are discussing come into effect, thus presumably avoiding any period during which there would have been no CO₂ regulations for new cars and vans covering Northern Ireland?

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the need to provide a short period of time to allow industry to adapt to the regulations coming into force. What does this adaptation actually involve doing? Is there a difference between the CO₂ regulations that applied in Northern Ireland prior to December 2020 and the regulations that will apply to Northern Ireland from 1 September 2021? As I said, removing these regulations from the protocol means that vehicles in Northern Ireland will not count towards EU manufacturer CO₂ targets and may count towards UK manufacturer CO₂ targets instead. However, since by 1 September 2021 there will have been no CO₂ regulations for new cars and vans covering Northern Ireland for some eight months, does that mean that relevant vehicles in Northern Ireland will have counted towards neither EU nor UK manufacturer targets? If so, what exactly has been achieved by creating that situation, and will adjustments to the figures for this eight-month period subsequently be made to EU and UK manufacturer CO₂ targets? The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that this will not be done. If that is the case, why not?

Following our departure from the EU, the Government’s policy for this year, as I understand it, has been to have a continuation of the existing EU-wide standards to minimise disruption for vehicle manufacturers. What, however, are the Government’s, intentions or plans for future vehicle emission standards in the UK, now that we are outside the EU? Or were the Government’s future intentions or plans covered by the comments the Minister made in her opening remarks? I look forward to the Government’s response to the points and questions that I and other noble Lords have raised in the debate.

Lorry Drivers

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I agree that they have been some of the heroes during the pandemic, and ensure that I frequently tell them so. I think they have done a fantastic job, but it is time for the industry to step up just a little more. On 1 August last year, we suspended the HGV levy. This has saved the industry hundreds of millions of pounds. For each truck, it costs about £900 a year, so if you are a haulier with 3,000 trucks, you save £2.5 million. That could train 800 new drivers. I ask the industry to recruit those people and train them.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Finding effective solutions means first identifying the cause. Driver and other staff shortage problems could lead to higher food prices. I get the impression from the Minister’s answers that the Government do not accept any responsibility for the present situation, but may I seek clarification on that? Do the Government think that the staff shortage problems are due to the end of free movement and the way they are now implementing border controls, or due to the effect of repeated Covid lockdowns, or do the Government think they have no responsibility and that the staff shortages are due to low pay and poor terms and conditions of employment, inadequate manpower planning or a failure by the industry to invest in proper training programmes to meet future manpower needs?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

All of the above; those are the issues we are facing. I have been Roads Minister now for two years, and I had this conversation with the haulage sector two years ago. It was very clear then that foreign labour would not be available to it. It has known that this was coming down the track. The TSC issued a report in 2016, pointing out exactly what the sector needed to do to address the shortage it had then, and yet still not enough has been done. I would accept that the Government stand ready to help. We have listened to the industry and work alongside the it. For example, on HGV testing, I have doubled the number of tests every week from the pre-Covid level. We are doing everything we can, and we need the industry to work in partnership with us.

Historical Railways Estate

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My noble friend is well aware that the Restoring Your Railway fund is available, and that any proposals put forward are given a fair hearing.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Attempts are being made to progress some of these Highways England demolition and infilling schemes under permitted development powers, which avoid the need for explanation and the challenges and objections that often accompany normal planning processes—including the need to seek permission from local councils. How is a declared policy of reopening former railway lines or encouraging walking and cycling tracks over disused railway lines consistent with Highways England blocking or severing potential routes by demolishing or filling in currently disused railway structures through a back-door process using permitted development powers, which stifles challenges and objections from local communities and organisations?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I would like to reassure your Lordships’ House that those structures that are potentially going to be infilled over the next five years—again, I say “potentially”—or be subject to other action, are fewer than 2.6% of all assets. Permitted development orders exist to prevent an emergency from occurring. Therefore, Highways England uses permitted development orders only where there is an emergency situation. I reassure noble Lords that to date Highways England has usually managed to get planning permission for any changes.