Merchant Shipping (Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships) Order 2022

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. Clearly, we welcome any steps to prohibit the use of harmful chemicals in anti-fouling systems. The sooner those steps are taken, the better.

As the Minister said, this relates to a convention and decisions taken some considerable time ago. It gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to implement the 2001 convention and subsequent amendments. I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, she gave an explanation that related to the need to use different powers at this point because we have now left the EU, whereas we relied previously on EU legislation. I therefore wish to quibble about paragraph 8.1 in the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“This … does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union”.


It does relate to withdrawal from the EU, as so much does, and it is worth explaining how.

Secondly, the Minister referred—I think, though I might have misheard—to getting the regulations on the statute book by next year. Is that what she was saying? I very much hope that that is the case and that the department is being ambitious on this. I would not like to see this legislation—which should surely be uncontroversial—going to the back of the maritime queue. The sooner it can be done, the better. Having made those brief comments, I support the SI.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose and objectives of this SI, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001. The objective of the convention is to protect the marine environment and the health of human beings from the adverse effects of anti-fouling systems. It does this by prohibiting the use of certain substances in these systems, or at least prohibiting their use on the outer coating of the hull of a ship.

As has been said, the convention was adopted in 2001 and came into force internationally in 2008. It was implemented by the UK through the adoption by the European Commission of a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of 2003, and by a further regulation in 2009. An annexe to the convention prohibits the use of specified substances in anti-fouling systems, including an additional new specified substance which is prohibited from the beginning of next year.

According to the Explanatory Memorandum,

“the Convention will protect United Kingdom waters from harmful effects of the use of prohibited substances on United Kingdom ships and non-United Kingdom ships visiting the United Kingdom.”

I assume that this is the case, but could I check that the convention applies equally in international waters?

As has been said, on the face of it, the provisions of the convention have taken a long time to be brought into effect. Although the Minister did go some considerable way to answering the point, it would be helpful to have it confirmed again, so I will repeat the question: is that the reality, and if so why? Or is the reality, as I believe it to be, that the terms of the convention have been applied in UK waters for some years, and that the reason this SI is needed relates to our withdrawal from the EU, despite, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum maintaining that this instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union?

The fact that the instrument appears related to our withdrawal from the European Union is strengthened by the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum states that no impact assessment has been prepared because the instrument

“has no impact on the cost to business”,

including small businesses. That presumably means that no expenditure is considered necessary by any party affected to meet the terms of any regulations the Government might make to give effect to the convention. Or is the argument that it is the regulations the Secretary of State will make that will incur additional costs and not this instrument, which enables the Secretary of State to make such regulations, which is why the Explanatory Memorandum says that there is no impact on the cost to business?

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Thursday 10th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this SI and thank the Minister for his explanation. It provides stability for the aviation sector and, importantly, removes much of the incentive for airlines to operate environmentally damaging ghost flights or flights with very few passengers just to keep their slots.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee questioned the Government’s decision to opt for 70%, which was the preferred option of airports, over 60%, the preferred option of airlines. This is a finely balanced decision based on data that is not available to me but which I hope the Government have analysed. I tend to side with the airports and hence endorse the Government’s decision, because airports have a much less flexible business model than airlines. You cannot just park up an airport; you have to keep it functioning, for certain safety reasons, even if you no longer have any commercial income.

I also welcome the Government’s additional reasons for non-utilisation of slots. The Explanatory Memorandum refers in paragraph 12.2 to what I call the game of slots played by certain airlines. It explains how attempts to consolidate valuable Heathrow slots have an impact way down the line on smaller airports—and, it is worth pointing out, on the availability and choice of flights and their price for passengers. This emphasises to me that the airlines have the upper hand here. That is another reason to endorse the Government’s decision.

However, I have one important question for the Minister, which echoes the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, with whom I fully agree. All these decisions were made prior to the recent awful war in Ukraine and its impact on many long-distance routes. There is likely to be a deterrent effect on travel to eastern Europe, which is generally regarded as being potentially affected by political instability. A vast range of frequent short-distance flights for leisure travel, as well as for business travel, to eastern Europe may be affected by this.

The noble Baroness pointed out an important loophole in the rules on overflying Russia and accepting flights in this country that have in practice flown over Russia. It is important that the Government clarify their position and amend their decisions in that regard. Can the Minister tell us what discussions the Government have had with the aviation industry about the impact of the war in Ukraine on it and what trends are emerging from what they can see so far? This is already being described as a second major challenge to our assumption that we can rely on easy international travel.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We are in agreement with the statutory instrument so I do not intend to speak at any great length. However, I have one or two questions and queries, which may display the fact that I have not fully understood the SI rather than anything else.

The reality is, as the Minister said, that we have slots because of lack of runway capacity and, indeed, airports. Presumably, if we had sufficient runway capacity and airports, we would not need slots. Do the Government accept that that is the case? If so, is that issue of runway capacity and airports, or lack of runway capacity and airports, one that the Government intend to address, since it appears that slots are related to that situation?

There is also a reference in paragraph 6.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the

“allocation of slots to air carriers at congested airports”.

I almost certainly ought to know the answer to this but I cannot think of it offhand. Which UK airports are deemed congested and therefore have the slots? Is it just the obvious ones that we can probably think of, or is it rather more extensive?

I believe the Minister said in his comments that, as a result of the measures that had been taken, the Government were not aware of any flights that had taken place just to retain the slot—that is, ghost flights. I may not have understood correctly what the Minister said but, if I did, how have the Government got this information and how would they define a flight that has taken place just to retain slots? As I understand it, during the waiver period, there were a substantial number of flights at very low capacity. I know that there may be an argument that they were carrying cargo, or they may have been repatriation flights, but does that mean that the Government really have kept tabs on all those flights and have satisfied themselves that none of them was flying purely to retain a slot? Admittedly, with a waiver rule, one wonders why they would have been doing that in any case, but it would be helpful if the Minister could comment on what I believe he said about the Government not being aware of any flights just to retain the slot.

Before the pandemic, can I take it that we were in a situation whereby no flights took place just to retain slots? In other words, in the summer of 2019, how many empty or near-empty ghost flights were operated? Perhaps the answer is none at all, in order to retain an airline’s historic rights to its slots. Is it anticipated that, with the 70:30 ratio, on which there has been a lot of consultation, as the Minister said, there will be no need for any airlines to start to operate ghost flights to retain that ratio? Is that how the figure has been determined as the appropriate one for this summer?

Finally, I come back to a point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred, on the response of the airlines. As I understand it from the Explanatory Memorandum, there were rather more airlines in favour of the 60% usage ratio, and most airports preferred 70%. The Government have decided on 70%. I am certainly in no position to say that they have got that wrong, but the noble Baroness referred to the data on which that assessment was made. I know that I am repeating a question she has already asked, but what data led the Government to decide that the 70:30 ratio was appropriate, bearing in mind that they apparently had airlines more likely to go for 60% and airports more likely to go for 70%? Was it a case for the Government of tossing a coin, or is there some hard data and evidence that led them to go down the road of 70%?

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for her explanation, including of the error. I am happy to accept that it will be corrected in due course.

The Government are going to some lengths here to comply with the terms of the TCA—but only just. This SI certainly follows the letter of our obligations under the TCA but does the absolute minimum required to do so, and in doing that, actually creates a more complex situation. As with so much associated with the post-Brexit legislation, it makes life more difficult and complex for small businesses.

The new EU regulations are tightening road safety requirements—that is obviously the intention of all this—by applying licensing to heavy goods vehicles that are less heavy than was previously the case. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee notes that this will apply to around 4,200 goods vehicle operators. It also notes that the legislation applies to Northern Ireland, too. In the case of Northern Ireland, the realities of the situation include, of course, not just the protocol but the fact that, in practice, goods vehicles cross and re-cross the border all the time, and can do so even if, for example, they start out in Northern Ireland to deliver goods to Northern Ireland, going east to west and west to east; the route can take them across the border several times. That is the way the road runs. So this could be a requirement for Northern Ireland operators a great deal more often than it will be in GB as a whole. So my question to the Minister is: am I right to assume that the vast majority of operators in Northern Ireland will have to adopt these new licences, at least as a precautionary principle?

In Britain as a whole, people will not need the licence for passenger vehicles—or they will not once the Minister has corrected the legislation. That seems simple enough, but it will also not be needed if the vehicle is not to be used internationally for hire or reward. That is a more complex issue. It is quite obvious if the vehicle you are running is a passenger vehicle, but it is less obvious if it is going to travel abroad. If you are running a Tesco delivery vehicle, you will know that it is not going abroad. But suppose you do small-scale removal of domestic equipment; you might operate for months or years without ever going abroad, then suddenly get a job that involves doing so. For a long time, you would have assumed that you do not need this licence, but that might prove a mistake and you might need to get it. That is why transport managers are so important. As the people responsible for licensing and insurance, it is their job to make sure that that sort of error does not happen, but there are some very small companies in which this kind of role might be overlooked.

The SI allows for a period of exemption so that companies and their managers can gain the required certificates. The Explanatory Memorandum says that efforts have been made to do this in time to allow companies to prepare, but in fact it comes into force on 21 May, which is a very short time span. I accept that the Government will do their best on this from this day onwards, because it comes into force tomorrow, but it is not long for people to prepare.

I welcome the limitation on who can take up acquired rights based on their previous experience. From paragraph 7.18 of the Explanatory Memorandum, it is obvious that training for transport managers increases safe working practices. I welcome the much more stringent requirement for transport managers generally, such as the limitation on the number of vehicles they can supervise, but it is illogical that they can operate an unlimited number of domestic vehicles. If you run a company with hundreds of vehicles, you will have little time to deal with the relatively small number of vehicles that are used internationally. My question to the Minister is: does the nation have a ready supply of properly qualified and experienced people for the role of transport manager, as it will obviously become more complex? Will the lack of transport managers be yet another hurdle for the freight industry to face this year?

I have a question to the Minister about paragraph 7.30 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says that there will not be local advertising of the need for the new licences. So how will the industry know about them? What are the Government doing to inform freight operators in general, especially small companies? The big companies will know, but the small companies will need help.

I have another question for the Minister, about the enhanced role for traffic commissioners that comes from this legislation. They clearly have an important regulatory role, but what additional resources are they being allocated for this important additional work?

Finally, paragraph 7.35 sets out a new requirement for operators to try to prevent “bogus operations”. This is clearly informed by bitter experience of the past. I do not think it is necessary for the Minister to explain it to us here, but there is clearly a problem. As this is obviously a significant and specific problem that is being dealt with in this legislation, can the Minister tell us how such activities will be inspected to ensure that the requirement in paragraph 7.35 is as effective as the Government clearly hope it will be?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of these regulations. I take the same view as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, does about the error. I thought I heard the Minister say that a wider review of the SI process is taking place. The only comment I would make is that this is not the first time we have had an error in a Department for Transport SI. I am sure that is much to the Minister’s frustration. Perhaps it is understandable that a wider review of the process is going on. I do not wish to say any more about that subject than that.

I noticed that the Explanatory Memorandum says, under the heading “Purpose of the instrument”:

“The UK is obliged to implement these changes following commitments included in the … Trade and Cooperation Agreement”.


I suppose that is an effort by the Government to make it clear that they are not really doing it willingly; it is because they have to. But some of us thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the trade and co-operation agreement had been freely entered into—in the way that the Northern Ireland protocol was freely entered into—and that the Government thought it was a good agreement. Judging by the Prime Minister’s comments at the time, he thought that was a pretty good deal. I only make the comment—I think this is something the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, alluded to—that whenever we come across anything to do with the EU there is always wording that makes it fairly clear that if the Government had their way they would not be doing anything along the lines of that particular instrument, which is perhaps unfortunate.

As I understand it, the Government are not introducing environmental requirements for HGV operators that stem from UK law. In the Commons, the Minister said that these

“are not required by the TCA.”

Is that now the test when it comes to environmental requirements: it is not whether they are desirable or needed, but simply whether they are “required”? Should environmental issues not be looked at on the basis of whether they are desirable or needed, rather than whether you are required to do it in some agreement or another? Perhaps I misunderstood the point that appears to have been made.

As has been said, these requirements apply only to LGVs on international trips, primarily to the EU. They do not apply domestically in the UK market. It is clear that the UK Government have no plans to regulate further, yet I think I am right in saying that the Minister in the Commons said that the operator licensing system

“continues to be vital to properly manage the use of large vehicles within the UK market.”—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 28/2/22; col. 4.]

I am just interested to hear the response. Why do the Government think that the licensing system would not be needed for LGVs in the UK market? Which parts that are needed for LGVs for international trips are deemed unnecessary and bureaucratic to apply within the UK markets? I presume that that is the Government’s argument for them not wanting to apply in the UK markets, because the Government consider them bureaucratic but are obliged to apply them because of the trade and co-operation agreement, which the Government freely entered into.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 61. Alcohol has been a factor in road safety for as long as there have been roads, but we know a lot more about it now and there is worldwide evidence of what works. That evidence has been taken up across Europe and, indeed, across the world, by a large number of countries.

In Committee, I was surprised to hear doubt being cast on this issue on the basis of an apparently disappointing impact in Scotland of lowering the limit. However, this is a very misguided approach, casting doubt on the scientific evidence rather than looking to see, if it has not worked in Scotland in the way that was hoped, why. Indeed, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that there are sound grounds for saying that it has had an impact in Scotland.

There are two factors involved in all this: the level at which it is illegal to drive and the enforcement of that level. There is scientific evidence for the former and a debate to be had on the best ways of enforcement, which is why I did not sign the other amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. That does not mean that I do not agree with it, but I think that there is a serious debate to be had about how you enforce it most fairly. The story in Scotland is that enforcement has been weak. All social change requires a combination of legislation, enforcement and social debate. There has been proper legislation in Scotland and some social debate, but also a lack of enforcement.

I want to concentrate on the statistics. In Committee, I made the point that with Scotland remaining at a stable level and things getting worse in England and Wales, you could say that Scotland was a success story. I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has done her maths and confirmed that this speculation is possibly accurate. However, I want to turn to government analysis, because government statistics say that overall, 5% of casualties in reported road accidents in 2019 occurred when at least one driver or rider was over the limit. In Wales, the figure was 6.9%, which is very disturbingly high. In England, the figure was 5.1% and in Scotland it was 4.6%, despite the fact that Scotland has a lower limit, which you would expect to lead to a higher percentage of those involved in accidents being over the limit.

So the difference might be marginal, but at least these statistics show a positive impact in Scotland—and, remember, each percentage point represents lives saved. I can think of no reason why British drivers and riders should be different from those across the world. We need to modernise, and this should be a top priority for the review of road traffic legislation—but I will be supporting the noble Lord if he presses this to a vote.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I well remember the debates that we had on this issue shortly after Scotland decided to reduce the drink-driving limit in 2014. My recollection was that the Government were in effect saying, “We want to wait and see what the outcome is in Scotland”, while others were saying, “Why wait to see what has happened? Why not just proceed and lower the limit to the same level as Scotland has done?”—which, as has already been said, would be in line with most other countries. The Government held their line that they wanted to wait for evidence from Scotland and would then look at the matter. I may be wrong, but I think that there was a general feeling that if it had had an impact on reducing drink driving in Scotland, the pressure would have been quite considerable on the Government to move, as far as this country was concerned.

Not all the suggested difficulties that might have arisen from reducing the limit in Scotland actually materialised. My understanding is that there was not a significant impact on pubs and restaurants, which is one thing that was said. We did not end up, as I understand it, with the police and the courts in Scotland being overloaded. My understanding—although obviously I will stand corrected if I am wrong—is that the lower limit was generally accepted by the public in Scotland. But it did not have the impact that many of us hoped it would have as far as drink-driving in Scotland was concerned. As I understand it—once again I will stand corrected if I am wrong—there have been academic studies by Bath University and Glasgow University that rather confirm that situation.

This is clearly an important issue and it needs looking at. There must be some logic in saying that one would have expected that reducing the drink-drive limit would have an impact on the level of such driving, to the benefit of us all—but it does not seem so far that it has had a great effect on the number or severity of accidents in Scotland. Views have been expressed this evening about lack of enforcement and lack of publicity for the change as far as Scotland was concerned, but certainly Scotland is not providing a particularly robust evidence base at present, subject to further studies and a more robust evidence base—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to issues concerning the figures. We need to look at all the factors that might contribute to making people safer, including, although it is only one, the level of enforcement, and the culture.

The Government have said that they are putting out what they describe as a wide call for evidence on a number of road safety issues. It is supposed to be starting in a month’s time. I hope we will be told that this will be a major one, because the question is repeatedly asked why we have a much higher limit than virtually everywhere else, and that surely the logic would show that if you reduce the limit you ought to get a benefit from that in a reduction in drink-driving.

So we welcome the call for evidence that the Government are making. I know that I cannot speak for all my colleagues in saying this, but we accept that the evidence from Scotland is not showing that the change has had the effect many of us thought it would have. There may well be reasons for that and perhaps that needs further investigation and study, but our view is that, as long as the Government commit to look at this seriously in the review that is being undertaken and the call for evidence on a number of road safety issues, we should not vote on this issue immediately but wait for that further review. However, we have heard points raised quite validly about whether this review will go on and on, or whether it will be conducted within a reasonable timescale to enable decisions to be made that could involve further legislation.

The Government need to say what plans they have to bring down the level of drink-driving. One hopes that that will emerge from the review that is being undertaken and that the course of reducing the limit might well be part of it. In the meantime, we will wait for this call for evidence and the outcome of the review. We want some understanding that it will be conducted within a reasonably speedy timescale. In the meantime, we could not support the amendment that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe has moved if he decided to push it to a vote.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2021

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her introduction. This is a complex but very important order. The sixth carbon budget requires reductions in emissions of 78% by 2035, and low-carbon fuels supported via the RTFO have been an important part of that process for the last decade. This SI extends the renewable transport fuel incentive to suppliers of renewable hydrogen used in fuel cell rail and non-road transport, and to renewable non-biological fuels for the maritime industries. It also increases the RTFO obligation by 5% until 2032, and updates emissions criteria.

This is an affirmative instrument which comes into force on 1 January 2022 which, as the Explanatory Memorandum points out, is less than 21 days. Clearly, that is less than the traditional amount of time. Some error has occurred somewhere down the line because while this is important, it is not a piece of emergency legislation. Therefore, it is regrettable that there is not the usual time limit.

Something to welcome strongly is that Articles 13 and 14 of this order strengthen the sustainability criteria. That thread runs through all of this. Are biofuels really sustainable? Are they really being produced in a fully sustainable manner? When you get down to the fundamentals, any land that you are using to produce biofuels is land that you could use to grow crops for food and so on. I therefore strongly welcome, for example, the criteria that would prevent biodiverse woodland being degraded for biofuel production.

As I said, it is a very complex area, because renewable fuels and feedstock originate from across the world. It is possible—indeed probable—that producers would be eligible for multiple incentives, which the UK provides, but are incentives where the fuel and crops originate from. What steps are being taken and what steps will the Government take to ensure that this is not exploited such that there are multiple payouts on one batch of fuel, if I can put it that way?

These detailed plans and arrangements were clearly devised prior to COP 26. How have they been affected, if at all, by the results of those discussions? Where do we go next, Minister?

Paragraph 7.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the increase in 2020 in the buy-out price from 30p to 50p. Can the Minister tell us whether this has been effective in stimulating the market?

The part of this we will all have noticed was the increase from E5 to E10 in September for bioethanol in petrol. I recall that, when we discussed the regulations on that, there were some areas where there were exceptions, such as the coast of Scotland, I believe. Were those exceptions envisaged to be temporary, perhaps to let the more distant parts of the UK improve their access to the most modern fuels, or is it envisaged that they will be permanent for those areas?

It is important to note that, despite government targets to phase out the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles, raise the main RTFO target and so on, there remains a fatal flaw in government policy. Emissions from transport are not declining. Cars and vehicles are becoming more efficient, but the emissions are not declining because of the increase in road traffic. That has been made worse because many people have rejected public transport as a result of their fear of Covid. The Government have a major task to get us back on to public transport. I notice that the bus strategy, which has excellent aims, has a huge funding gap; four local authorities have made bids which are equal to the total amount of money available, and there are over 70 local authorities which could bid for it. Clearly there is a funding gap there.

I do not want to dwell on private grief for the Government, but last week was not an easy week for them in the north of England because of the rail announcement. Even with electric vehicles, the Government have a mountain to climb to gain public confidence. I am pleased to see these improvements, but there is still a vast amount of work for the Government to do, and unfortunately some of it involves additional funding.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the order, as has been said, amends the Renewable Transport (Fuel Obligations) Order 2007 to increase targets for fuel suppliers, thus driving the supply of renewable fuel in transport and delivering further greenhouse gas reductions. It amends Article 4 of the RTFO order so that the main obligation on renewable fuel targets increases by five percentage points, from 9.6% to 14.6%, between 2022 and 2032.

Those suppliers that meet or exceed the obligations already acquire renewable transport fuel certificates, the training of which provides a financial incentive. The order extends that financial incentive to suppliers of renewable hydrogen, used in fuel cell rail and non-road transport, and of renewable fuels of nonbiological origin used in maritime transport.

The Government have said that the RTFO delivers about a third of the savings required for the UK’s current transport budget, and that last year the RTFO scheme saved carbon emissions equivalent to taking 2.5 million combustion engine-powered cars off the road. They have also said that the changes made by this order are estimated to deliver the equivalent of an additional 1.5 million cars by 2032. As we know, in 2019, road transport accounted for 24% of all greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from transport have remained largely unchanged since 1990, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, just reminded us.

How did the Government finally come to the conclusion that a five percentage point increase in the renewable fuel target between 2022 and 2032 would be sufficient in the transport sector to meet our greenhouse gas emission and climate change goals? What, if anything, happens after 2032?

The Government consulted on only three options: increasing the main obligation by 1.5, 2.5 or 5 percentage points, with the Department for Transport backing a 2.5 percentage point increase in the renewable fuel target. Paragraph 10.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Of the 77 respondents that expressed a preference on the amount by which this target should increase, 61 supported an increase to the RTFO main obligation of 5 percentage points or more. These respondents included suppliers of renewable fuel who benefit from support under the certificate trading scheme, and suppliers of fossil fuel who must meet the targets. Those in support of an increase of 5 percentage points or more suggested this could provide long term certainty to industry and would provide a further contribution to the government’s commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Accordingly, the government has decided to increase the RTFO main obligation by a further 5 percentage points between 2022 and 2032.”


There appears to have been a greater commitment to the Government’s net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050 from the respondents to the consultation than there was from the Government themselves, which begs the question: does the order go far enough? Why did the order reject going beyond 5 percentage points, as some respondents clearly proposed, despite that not even being one of the three options the Government had offered?

Integrated Rail Plan: North and Midlands

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

This integrated rail plan is in reality about backtracking on government promises to build the eastern leg of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. The Government know that HS2 and full delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail would have given a major boost to the economies of our northern cities, because that is what the construction and pending completion of HS2 have already done and will continue to do for the economy of the West Midlands and Birmingham in particular. Leeds and the local West Yorkshire economy will now be denied the full £54 billion of estimated economic benefits of their HS2 link, with Leeds becoming a less attractive venue than it would have been for new and expanding businesses. Northern Powerhouse Rail delivered in full, with a new high-speed line through Bradford, was also set to deliver an estimated £22 billion for northern economies. The integrated rail plan does not address the impact of backtracking on the eastern leg of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail on the economies of our northern cities and towns, and there was no government answer when I asked about it last Thursday.

Typically, this Government are now seeking to silence opposition to their watered-down plan, since Transport for the North, which is overseen by all the northern mayors and council leaders, has just been told that it will no longer be financed by central government to develop Northern Powerhouse Rail and that in future this work will be funded directly, and thus controlled directly, via Network Rail by the Department of Transport, a reflection of the Government’s centralising tendency and lack of enthusiasm for real devolution of power and decision-making.

The Government’s integrated rail plan, which incidentally says very little about rail freight at all, places great weight on the virtues of upgrades of existing lines and the time in which they can be completed and the costs incurred. In doing so, though, the rail plan and the Secretary of State fail to reflect the very different experience of recent major upgrades. The west coast main line was upgraded at a cost of £9 billion, nearly four times the original cost estimate of £2.5 billion. Despite costs ballooning nearly 400%, the upgrade still had to be reduced in scope from 140 mph top speed to 125 mph with moving block signalling, in-cab signalling, being abandoned; otherwise, the cost would have been up by nearly 600%. The project led to substantial upheaval to existing services over a period of years and was not completed until 2009, very late and 10 years after it started.

Work on the Great Western electrification commenced in June 2010 and was due to be completed in 2016-17, but was not completed until 2019-20. The project ran into major difficulties, causing repeated extensions to deadlines and costs to increase by more than 300%, to around £2.8 billion in 2018 from £874 million in 2013. Despite this dramatic increase in costs, the project still had to be scaled back to keep cost increases merely in excess of three times the original figure. Electrification from Didcot Parkway to Oxford, Cardiff to Swansea, Chippenham to Bath and Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads, as well as branches to Henley and Windsor, were also deferred indefinitely by the Government in November 2016, with the Cardiff to Swansea electrification being cancelled outright in July 2017.

The message is clear: upgrading routes is not as straightforward as the Government suggest. The hard evidence shows that costs will be very much higher than projected and the time taken to do the work a great deal longer than projected. Statements plucked out of the air about being able to deliver a watered-down version of what was promised a decade earlier than projected fly in the face of the facts and experience. Such statements also fly in the face of the Government’s own document, which indicates that the new lines on part of the watered-down Liverpool to Leeds route will not come into service until the 2040s—the same timescale within which the Prime Minister, in his foreword to the plan, says that high-speed lines under the original plan will have reached the east Midlands and Yorkshire.

Further, on costs, there is no breakdown of costings for each separate project within the plan, or a breakdown of any large figures within each separate project. There is also a further issue: the watered-down schemes outlined in the rail plan are dependent for delivery, on both projected capacity and speeds, on digital signalling. But I believe, perhaps mistakenly, that there is not yet a substantial tried and tested digital signalling scheme as envisaged by Secretary of State already in full operation. Indeed, people have so far been working on trying to develop such a scheme for more than 20 years. If there is a delay in the projected timescale for bringing such an as yet untried signalling development to fruition, even the watered-down schemes as projected in the rail plan will be severely compromised in respect of capacity, speed and timescale.

In the past decade, the north of England received £349 per person in transport spending, while London got £864. If the north had received the same level of spending as London, it would already have had £86 billion more since 2010. Yet this rail plan, worth £96 billion, some of which is in the south at the southern end of HS2, will take well into the 2040s at best to complete, considerably over two decades away. This plan, with its backtracking on previous pledges and reductions in previously stated future levels of expenditure, continues, not addresses, regional investment inequalities. So much for the Government’s levelling up and delivering HS2 in full, including the eastern leg, and Northern Powerhouse Rail.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I recall a particularly funny episode of “Yes Minister” in which the Prime Minister asked Jim Hacker to produce an integrated transport plan. It was called “The Bed of Nails”, and I was reminded of that episode over the weekend as I watched the Secretary of State valiantly trying and failing to sell this plan as a success for the north of England. It takes a lot of ingenuity to produce a plan that almost doubles the time it will take to get, for example, from Birmingham to York, and still call it an improvement on previous plans.

Despite the Secretary of State’s sleight of hand, the plan has not been well received. The Government have managed to unite the elected mayors of the north, the chambers of commerce in Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Birmingham, east Lancashire, Doncaster, the east Midlands and even London, the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, Conservative MPs for northern constituencies and the Conservative chair of the Transport Committee in opposing and criticising the Government’s plan.

Not surprisingly, one of the critics was Transport for the North, and for that it has been stripped of its powers, which seems a very strange approach to levelling up. I join the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in asking the Minister to explain why control of the Northern Powerhouse Rail project will now lie solely with central government—what is it that makes Ministers so sure that they know better than the people of the north about what they need in relation to railways?

The most high-profile decision was, of course, to truncate HS2 by abandoning the eastern leg. Those cities that had expected to be directly linked to a new 21st-century rail line have developed investment plans predicated on that and expected an economic boost along those lines. They now have to start again following a massive no-confidence vote by the Government. As the noble Lord said, transport spend per head is scarcely more than one-third of the size that it is in London. In her answer to me last Thursday, the Minister admitted that abandoning HS2 and reducing the Northern Powerhouse Rail plans

“saves the taxpayer billions of pounds.”—[Official Report, 18/11/21; col. 407.]

I suggest to the Minister that this approach is totally unacceptable. What do the Government plan to do to redress the balance now that their levelling-up promises to the north of England lie in tatters?

HS2 was always as much about capacity as speed. The Government are going instead for a patchwork of schemes, with short stretches of electrification. Digital signalling, which has long been promised, and longer platforms for longer trains will create some extra capacity but it does not compare with what a whole new railway would do. The Government promised to electrify 13,000 kilometres of railway by 2050 and so far have done 2.2% of that. So we are 235 years behind schedule. I ask the Minister: after all the stretches referred to in the plan have been completed, what percentage will we be on?

Finally, one of the reasons for building a new line is that the upgrading of existing lines is enormously disruptive. As a veteran of 10 years of Great Western’s electrification, I can attest to that. What calculations have the Government made of the cost of disruption for the lines they propose to upgrade?

Transport Decarbonisation

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

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.

Britain’s Railways

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Television has given us “The Great British Bake Off”, “The Great British Sewing Bee”, “Great British Menu” and “Great British Railway Journeys” as programmes for our delectation and entertainment. Now the Williams and Shapps plan, determined not to be outdone, but hardly in a display of originality, is offering us Great British Railways. The Secretary of State is at pains to tell us that the proposed changes for our railways, extending the role of the public sector, are simplification not renationalisation. The changes may not mean full public ownership but they are certainly a further step closer to it, and would make the final switch easier, which is no doubt why the Secretary of State doth protest so much.

The plan does a demolition job on the failed, fragmented privatisation of our railways and the insuperable problems it has created, which the Secretary of State now admits can no longer be allowed to continue. The plan is basically a statement of hope and assertions about what the proposed new structure and Great British Railways will deliver. The shadow Secretary of State has already written to Grant Shapps with questions on 15 initial specific points and we await a detailed written response. I will, though, make a few points now.

The plan makes great play of 400 jobs that exist to determine the allocation of blame for delays. The need to do this will seemingly disappear under Great British Railways. Yet the Government talk about incentivising train operators to run services on time. Whether that also means penalties for running services late is not clear. Either way, there will presumably still be a need to determine where responsibility for a delay lies, since it would hardly be appropriate to attribute to a train operator, on a management contract with incentives to run services on time, responsibility for a passenger train delay caused by a track or signalling failure or another operator.

We need to know far more about how the proposed incentives regime will work and its potential rewards and for whom. Even Great British Railways is going to be incentivised. The plan refers to the perverse effect of incentives under franchising arrangements. We could be in danger of going down that same path again, despite the repeated assertions in the plan to the contrary. Train operators will continue to bear cost risk, but there will be incentives to run trains to time, to run clean trains, to run safe trains, to run high-quality services, to manage costs, to attract more passengers and to work with other railway organisations for the greater good. It will be some bureaucracy that will be needed to devise, manage and supervise that sort of regime if these are more than token gesture incentives—and all because the Government are not prepared to countenance Great British Railways operating the rail services itself.

That is also why the plan represents change from what we have at present, rather than the transformative, generational change that the Secretary of State wants us to believe. There is little more than a passing reference in the White Paper to the rolling stock leasing companies. No case has been made for why, almost alone, they need to continue in their present form, or indeed at all, in a situation where Great British Railways will have ownership of the railway infrastructure and assets, apart, it seems, from the rolling stock. This is despite the plan asserting that the new structure will increase Great British Railways’ purchasing power and economies of scale, and bemoaning the fact that we have so many variations in rolling stock.

Likewise, from reading the White Paper one would hardly know that we have elected metro mayors with responsibilities over transport. Giving metro mayors much greater responsibility, certainly for local rail services within their areas, and the associated resources, is not something that appears to be being entertained. It looks as though Mr Grayling’s boast as Secretary of State that he would not hand over control of rail services to a Labour mayor may still inform the Government’s claimed non-ideological approach.

We will need clarity on what specific responsibilities and powers are being transferred from the Department for Transport to Great British Railways, and what specific railway responsibilities and powers are being retained or created within the department. Likewise, we will need clarity on the impact of the proposals on the powers of the devolved Administrations. I assume that the transfer of undertakings regulations will apply to all staff transferred from their existing employer to Great British Railways or any other railway organisation. Legislation will be required to implement some of these proposals, not least in relation to the creation, governance, roles and responsibilities of Great British Railways and other statutory bodies whose remit is changed.

The plan refers to financial resources covering five-year periods. One assumes that also applies to Great British Railways. Those resources need to be guaranteed if service levels and quality are to be maintained and improved, and rolling programmes of investment sustained, but the plan does not make it clear whether that will be the case or how. We are already hearing noises that the Treasury is demanding significant savings. Indeed, the plan asserts that the new structure and working procedures will save £1.5 billion.

I pay tribute to the role and work of railway staff during the pandemic. I hope the Government are determined to see our railways make a full recovery from its effects and then develop further, because the plan blows a bit hot and cold on this. The foreword says:

“Much of the old demand will return … This government profoundly believes in the future of the railways. Without them, our cities could not function … We are growing the network, not shrinking it.”


Yet tucked away in the section of the plan on “Empowering rail’s people”, it states:

“The future of the sector hangs in the balance.”


That is a very different tone. Which represents the Government’s true thinking and intentions will become clearer when we find out whether the emphasis of these changes is on achieving a rapid reduction in costs, at all costs, or on growing the network and recognising that the value of our railways to the quality of life of our citizens and the economic well-being and strength of our country extends far beyond the content of a Treasury financial spreadsheet.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly welcome this long-overdue plan for reform and thank Keith Williams for his work on this. My only regret is that it has taken this long to get here. The industry has been crying out for reform for many years; one in three trains was late in the last year before the pandemic and two-thirds of contracts since 2012 have been awarded to single bidders—hardly a sign of a vibrant, competitive industry.

However, unlike some, I do not believe that the answer lies in a return to British Rail, which ended in stagnation and closures and as the butt of rather predictable jokes. This Statement harks back to the glory days of the 19th century, but the last 60 years have all been a bit of a mess. For a long time, the Transport for London contract structure has been touted as the answer, with the appropriate balance of risk for private contractors yet a fully integrated service. However, Transport for London has said publicly that it took it two decades of experience to get to the ideal contract model.

This is welcome, but it does not mean it will be easy—I do not for a minute imagine that the Minister thinks it will. The sheer scale of the thing is a problem. Great British Railways will be a massive organisation, bringing together Network Rail, many other DfT functions and some of the Rail Delivery Group functions. Currently DfT has three director-generals to cover rail services alone. The new organisation will be enormous and complex, and freedom from direct government interference will be essential for success.

The first problem is that, despite the name, Great British Railways is not really British, because it does not cover most of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or London. Those have devolved services. So, my question is an important one: how will GBR liaise and link in with those other services? It is essential that that link is smooth and coherent. And what about the devolution of services to local authorities, which has been encouraged lately? Local authorities can add a great deal to the standard of service. There must be a role for them in order to raise the threshold. I rather feel that the word “Great” will be at the mercy of headline writers the first time something goes wrong—but I think there is the potential to get a coherent picture of the whole, so long as devolution is taken fully into account.

In interviews, the Secretary of State has indicated the likelihood of fare rises. First, how much power will the Department for Transport have to intervene and dictate fare rises? Secondly, is it wise to raise fares at a time when the Government are trying to reduce emissions and rail services are desperately trying to attract passengers back after the pandemic? Fares are up 50% in real terms since 1997; they are the most expensive in Europe. I welcome the details on flexible season tickets and other long-overdue innovations, but the Government predict savings of £1.5 billion within five years—so are fare rises justified?

The Minister will tell us again that taxpayers have subsidised the railways to the tune of billions of pounds in the last year. In fact, they have subsidised train operating companies, not the passengers themselves. Taxpayers also subsidised Eat Out to Help Out, but the Government are not expecting restaurant customers to pay more now to refill government coffers. So I put in a plea: rather than raising fares, now is the time to reduce them for a short period, to lure people back on to the railways and, as new travel and working patterns emerge, to encourage new leisure rail users?

Finally, freight. The combination of recentralisation, better co-ordination and the current lower passenger numbers provides a big opportunity for bold steps to improve and increase freight services. But that needs capital investment, too; will we get it?

National Bus Strategy: England

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Thursday 18th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I first express our thanks to all those involved in the bus industry for the invaluable work that they have always done and continue to do, not least during Covid-19, to provide a vital service to the nation which brings enormous social and economic benefits that extend way beyond crude calculations of whether a bus service is “viable” based on revenue from fares compared with cost incurred. This Statement appears to recognise that point when it says that

“buses are not just an industry but almost a social service.”

I hope that this does not prove to be just a gimmicky phrase.

Over the last decade, we have seen the loss of 134 million bus miles, and some 3,000 local authority-supported bus services have been cut over the same period as a result of government policies that have led to ever-increasing fares—way above inflation outside London—and cuts in local government finances. Bus coverage in Britain is now the lowest it has been in 30 years, despite a rising population. Office for National Statistics figures appear to show that, in January, bus fares were up by 21% on the previous year—the highest yearly increase since figures began. I invite the Government to comment on that. If that is the case, the increase in fares has been some 70% over the last decade.

The Statement says that there will be £3 billion of government investment in the industry to deliver what is said in the Statement about passengers wanting

“more routes and services, easier information and greener buses … simple cheap flat fares”

and

“the kind of frequency that means you do not even have to look at the timetable before you get on the bus—and more services in the evening and at weekends.”

How much does that £3 billion amount to per year, and how did the Government come to the conclusion that £3 billion was the required figure? How many of the 134 million lost bus miles will be restored as a result of that investment?

The Secretary of State said in the Commons on Monday:

“We … would not be putting £3 billion in if we did not expect, as the bus strategy says, to make buses more affordable. It is central to our vision that they are not just practical, but the affordable means of transport.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/21; col. 52.]


Do the Government regard bus fares outside London as affordable at present? If not, what does making “buses more affordable” really mean in terms of reducing existing fares?

The Statement says that, by the end of June, all local authorities, with the bus operators’ support, will have to commit either to a statutory enhanced partnership with their bus operators or to franchising arrangements along the lines of those that apply in London. Local authorities, in collaboration with operators, will then produce bus service improvement plans by the end of October this year. What happens, though, if there is a difference of view between the local authority and the bus operators, since future government financial support would depend on there being no difference of view on whether there should be enhanced partnership or franchising arrangements? The Secretary of State appears to be keeping the power to himself to decide who has the capability and capacity to run franchising, which does not sound much like devolving responsibility, and rather more like continuing with tight central control. If the local authority wants franchising arrangements but the bus operators do not agree, against what criteria will the Secretary of State decide whether the local authority can or cannot run franchising?

The Statement also says that

“we will work with councils to introduce bus priority schemes this year, and we will roll out marketing to attract millions of new passengers to the network—people who have never used buses before.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/21; col. 49.]

How much will the Government invest in this marketing, and what form will it take? How many millions of new passengers will have to be attracted to the network—

“people who have never used buses before”—

for the Government to deem this marketing to have achieved its objective?

The Statement refers to passengers wanting greener buses. The Government promised 4,000 zero-emission buses over a year ago, but very little appears to have happened yet. There are over 30,000 buses in England alone. Under this new bus strategy, what percentage of the bus fleet will be zero-emission in two, five and eight years’ time, and how many new green jobs will be created in the bus and coach sector? We have already seen more than a thousand jobs lost in the bus and coach manufacturing industry since the pandemic started.

At the moment, this Government’s bus legacy is ever higher fares, ever fewer passengers, ever fewer bus services and little or no progress on zero-emission vehicles. If the new strategy delivers a major reversal of that policy, that will be very much welcomed, certainly when it happens. The Government’s responses to the issues and questions I have raised will give an indication of whether the new strategy is largely words, or whether it reflects a clearly thought through delivery plan with clear, specific and ambitious timetabled targets and the resources already committed to enable them to be delivered.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this Statement is obviously welcome because it is so long overdue. We have been expecting it since 2019, and in the meantime the bus crisis has worsened in ways that we could not have imagined. At this point, I must specifically thank all who work in the bus industry and, in particular, remember those who have died from Covid during the last year. They have all undertaken a difficult and unexpectedly dangerous job. Because of the virus, the Government have spent the last year discouraging us from using buses, and it will be a hard task to get us back into the habit.

We welcome this strategy because it inherently accepts that the deregulation of the bus services outside London in the 1980s was a failure. It is a pity that it has taken so long to recognise this.

For the sake of the climate, to reduce congestion, and to reduce harmful emissions and their effects on our health, I welcome the intention to move to zero-emission buses. It is just a pity that it comes a week after the Budget which froze fuel duty and proposed reductions in APD, neither of which suggest a strategic approach to our climate change commitments.

The Government apparently do not have a firm date in mind for an end to sales of diesel buses. The Campaign for Better Transport suggests that 2025 is a reasonable and feasible date. Can the Minister explain how long they expect their consultation on this to run? Every week of consultation eats into the preparation time for the industry.

Encouraging British-built zero-emission buses is an excellent scheme. The Government announced in 2020 that they would invest £120 million in 4,000 zero-emission buses. More than a year on from that announcement, we still see nothing productive from this promise and await an announcement in the spring. The Government have already lost a lot of valuable time on this and the Minister herself recognises that only 2% of our bus fleet is electric. For a more just and equal society, I welcome the commitments to cheaper fares and more regular and frequent services. What the strategy lacks is any detail on how these cheaper fares will be paid for.

Fares are the result of a combination of factors that include several separate funding streams from the Government. They are hopelessly outdated and none of those funding streams incentivise greener vehicles or relate to the number of miles travelled. The emergency funding for bus services increased the confusion, with funding based on historical concessionary fare payments for passengers who were not actually travelling. I can see no detail on this but would welcome any proposals for reform that the Minister can tell us about. For certain, we will not see a significant step towards improvements in fares, such as integrated ticketing, simply by relying on current funding streams.

Most bus companies do not make excess profits. Indeed, in rural areas many have a problem just surviving. Local authorities already point to a £700 million funding gap on concessionary fares and the Government must deal with this long-standing underfunding before they can start to expect a commitment from local authorities for improvements to services. So this Statement needed to be ambitious, and indeed it is, but it lacks a level of detail and realistic steps towards targets that are essential if it is to be useful. For many local councils, the level of bus services is now so low that recovery will require a total revolution in funding. The £3 billion sounds a lot, but as there are 4.2 billion bus journeys a year in this country, I think that sets the scale of things in perspective.

This strategy is really just a skeleton. It has taken the Government two years to produce and lacks so much necessary detail. Therefore, it is way out of kilter to expect local authorities to sign up to either enhanced partnerships or franchising by June—that is less than three months for a decision requiring major financial and legal decisions. Moreover, local authorities are expected to produce bus improvement strategies by October. Many local authorities no longer have the expertise among their staff to responsibly make those decisions—but, if they do not opt for one or the other, they will not get further funding. That is a decision with a gun to their heads. So my question is, will they have the scope to change their minds after they initially opt for one or other route?

Franchising is a complex legal process. The Bus Services Act 2017 restricted franchising to authorities with elected mayors. I never understood why, and strenuous attempts were made to try to broaden this, but that is the law. Can the Minister explain if and when we can expect fresh legislation to allow a broader sweep of local authorities to franchise bus services? Do the Government now accept that some of the best services in Britain are council run and owned, and that the restriction on councils setting up and owning their own services needs to be lifted?

The Statement also refers to very welcome improvements to disabled access, and I want to press the Minister on this. The 2017 Act improved and clarified access priorities. There were further improvements proposed, which the Government did not accept at that time. Can the Minister give us details of what she plans and whether we can expect legislation and when? I would also welcome more details on government proposals for encouraging on-demand services. I agree that such innovation will be important for modernisation. The Minister referred to 17 trial areas. I am very keen to know how these areas will be chosen—or have they been chosen already? What are the criteria? Do they include average income levels, car ownership and so on? Was it a bidding process? Some of the Government’s ambitions rely on new infrastructure, such as bus lanes. Does the £3 billion cover that as well as buses themselves?

Finally, you cannot buy a painting-by-numbers kit and expect to produce a Rembrandt. This Statement is the bare outline of a vision for the future, and there is nothing wrong with that vision, but the Government seem to be leaving local authorities and bus companies to fill in the picture without making it clear where the resources will come from.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the raising of this fresh issue. I have had representations from residents in Shropshire about a sudden unexplained increase in aircraft noise in their area. In this case the noise was undoubtedly caused by civilian flights. People who suddenly find themselves underneath flights by the Air Force and the military often understand the need for those, but they may be more concerned about civilian commercial flights.

Even the local councillors could not find the cause. They could not discover where the flights were coming from, or why there had been a sudden increase. Was a new airline operating from a nearby airport? Were the schedules, or the destinations, different? They could not find the answer, and then along came the pandemic, and there was no longer a problem. However, that does not mean that the problem has disappeared for ever, or that it will not be back in the reasonably near future.

Even if that problem does not return in Shropshire, that would not undermine the important principle behind the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for tabling it. Areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks are subject to numerous protections in terms of planning, the natural environment, and the agriculture that can take place within them, but, as I understand it, there is no protection from aircraft noise.

The Bill threatens to make the present vulnerability of such places worse, because airports will now be required to surrender their spare airspace. There might be an airport very close to an AONB but not operating over it simply because there is no commercial incentive to use that route. But now airports are to be asked to give up their spare airspace for use by general aviation, which means that our skies will be even more crowded.

This is an interesting development, at a time when the Government are keen to burnish their environmental credentials. I recommend that they look into this and see whether they can use their new powers to deal with the problem of noise. I urge the Minister to take seriously the suggestion in the amendment that flights below 7,000 feet should be controlled, and allowed only in certain situations.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for his amendment, which, as he said, provides us with an opportunity to debate aircraft noise. I am sure that in her response, the Minister will set out the Government’s position on that. I certainly would not claim to know what all their objectives are on aircraft noise, but I do remember one, although it is unrelated to the specific issue covered in the amendment.

Following the 2017 public consultation on Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, the Government said that their objective was to

“limit or reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise at night, including through encouraging the use of quieter aircraft, while maintaining the existing benefits of night flights.”

As we are discussing aircraft noise, it might be interesting if the Minister could provide some information on the specific certifiable progress that has already been made towards achieving that stated government objective, and what specific further objectives and targets the Government have set themselves for the next three years so as to deliver on the objective to which I referred.

On the specific issue raised in this amendment, I am sure that a great many people who visit national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have, at times, been conscious of aircraft flying low overhead. An interesting point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about all the other types of protection that already exist for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. In that context, she asked why the goal and objective set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, might not also offer a further protection, in view of how aircraft noise can, at times, diminish the enjoyment that people expect when visiting national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The amendment refers specifically to civil aircraft, but presumably there could be an issue with military aircraft in this context as well.

I support the basic objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, seeks with his amendment. I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will set out the Government’s thinking on aircraft noise, not least on the specific circumstances covered by this amendment and the goals, objectives and targets that the Government have set in this regard.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage
Monday 30th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we received a useful briefing from HS2 prior to this debate. The final sentences read:

“Legislation to complete the Western leg of HS2 into Manchester is expected to come forward in 2022. Extending the line to Crewe is the first step to making this happen.”


There is a total absence of any reference there to the eastern leg. Other speakers have talked about the regenerative impact of HS2. This has already been demonstrated in Birmingham despite the line not being built yet. It is already a hotspot for inward investment, with high-quality jobs being created in major banks—HSBC and Deutsche Bank—as well as, importantly, in Jacobs Engineering.

The Government’s election rhetoric on levelling up won them seats in the north-east, and HS2 is an essential part of that. It is integral to delivering the plans of both the northern powerhouse and the Midlands engine. That means the whole of HS2; as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, without the eastern leg it will be unable to improve the transport links across the country and to create new freight capacity.

This is all essential if the Government are to be able to decarbonise our transport system. Much more important than higher speeds is the capacity that HS2 will unlock. Only a very small percentage of commuters currently use rail in the north of England. For example, 7% of people commuting from Liverpool to Manchester, and 3% going from Hull to Sheffield, use rail. That is because services are slow and unreliable. HS2 will provide additional capacity on existing lines by freeing them up to enable faster, modern trains to provide many more services. Trains are the most carbon-efficient mass transport system available.

Existing rail freight services are far too slow. Freight is the most challenging part of our transport system to decarbonise. Road freight accounts for 5% of our nation’s CO₂ emissions, so it has to be tackled. For example, it now takes 11 hours to send freight by rail from Liverpool to Selby, for the Drax power station. That is an unrealistically long time. It takes only three hours to take the same load by road. The Government cannot hope to improve productivity and create well-paid jobs in the north, while meeting our climate commitments, without revolutionising the infrastructure of the region. HS2 is the key to that—freeing us from reliance on a 19^th-century rail system that is literally buckling under the strain.

What we need from the Minister today is a firm and unequivocal commitment to the eastern leg, with a timeframe that puts it on an equal footing with the west. We will be listening very carefully but, much more importantly, the people of the north-east are listening. They will not forgive, or forget, any attempt to renege on election promises. As noble Lords have made clear this afternoon, the case for the eastern leg has been made perfectly over the years. It is now well overdue for work to start on the details of this project.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I do not intend to repeat all the points made so persuasively by my noble friend Lord Adonis and other noble Lords in support of his amendment. The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 election said that:

“HS2 is a great ambition”,


but, as we all know, great ambitions are not always realised in full. The manifesto went on to say that HS2,

“will now cost at least £81 billion and will not reach Leeds or Manchester until as late as 2040.”

Continuing, the manifesto said that:

“We will consider the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings and work with leaders of the Midlands and the North to decide the optimal outcome”.


In other words, there was no unambiguous commitment in the 2019 manifesto to complete HS2 via the East Midlands to Leeds, since the “optimal outcome” was dependent on government consideration of the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe invited the Government to commit to building HS2 phase 2b to Leeds in full. In reply, the Government said that:

“Plans to provide the benefits of high-speed rail to the east Midlands, Yorkshire and beyond will be confirmed following the publication of the integrated rail plan”,


and,

“that a properly connected line from the Midlands up to the North will be a key part of the HS2 project.”—[Official Report, 9/11/20; col. GC 351.]

As we know, that reply was not a commitment to build HS2 phase 2b via the East Midlands to Leeds in full.

It would thus be helpful if the Government could clarify in their response what the phrases,

“plans to provide the benefits of high-speed rail to the east Midlands, Yorkshire and beyond”,

and,

“a properly connected line from the Midlands up to the North will be a key part of the HS2 project”,

actually mean. Do they mean that the Government are committed to building HS2 phase 2b via the East Midlands to Leeds in full, or do they mean not that the high-speed line will be built the whole way from Birmingham via the East Midlands to Leeds but that HS2 services could, for all or part of that journey, run over existing routes calling at existing stations?

The indications are that the Government are either looking to abandon or scale back the eastern leg of HS2 through to Leeds or, at best, seriously delay its construction and completion. The lack of a clear commitment to the HS2 project in full calls into question the Government’s declared commitment to levelling up, since the eastern leg is just as vital as the delivery of the western leg. Levelling up cannot just mean levelling up the north-west and the West Midlands. It is just as vital to communities in the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-east. Indeed, only proceeding with the western leg would leave the cities and areas that would have been served by the eastern leg at a disadvantage.

The Government now have the opportunity to put to rest any concerns over their commitment to the eastern leg by saying, in their response today, that they are committed to the construction and bringing into operation of HS2 phase 2b to Leeds via the East Midlands in full, and giving the date by which they intend it will be completed. The Government can also accept the terms of this amendment. We will now have to see if they intend to take that opportunity. It will be for my noble friend Lord Adonis to decide whether he is satisfied with the Government’s response but, if he does decide to call for a vote, we will be supporting him.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting : House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting
Thursday 12th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue. In a way, this amendment goes alongside the previous one on NDAs. You wonder why the use of NDAs is apparently routine in an organisation on this scale. The problem with routine use of NDAs is that, while no individual one is possibly downright wrong, the whole oversight of the scheme gets suppressed. Therefore, it becomes difficult to see those early symptoms of things not working as they should.

We must also bear in mind that it is very easy for an organisation the size of HS2 to look overbearing, unfeeling and unreasonable. It is therefore very much in everyone’s interests that it operates as a good business with the highest ethical standards. It is, after all, a programme and a business for the future, producing something that will be at least 10 years in the making. Therefore, it needs to have modern, responsible business practices.

I suggest to the Minister that, while I am sure she will not want to accept the amendment, it would be an idea for the business practices of HS2 to be given a good look, with this amendment and issue in mind.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I will be brief. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, this amendment is about the attitude and approach of HS2. I tried to make a note of some of the things that he referred to. I think he referred to a highly impersonal manner and to the level of control to ensure uniformity of approach when not all cases are similar. I think he referred to the shifting of the burden of proof, to the delaying of payments and to the challenging of decisions line by line. I think he also referred to how it seemed that the Treasury put pressure on the DfT, which put pressure on HS2 regarding finances, and to how eventually all that financial pressure being applied was reflected down the line in the approach to claimants.

I will listen with interest to what the Minister says in reply and, in particular, to whether she accepts that there is validity in what is being said. The noble Earl clearly believes that there is, and I imagine that he is far from the only one who thinks that that is the approach of HS2. I know the Minister will take what has been said seriously. However, I hope very much that she will be able to offer some words that will at least indicate that she will look at the issue and seek to address the concerns raised.

Covid-19: Transport

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I begin by expressing our thanks to all involved in the transport industry, and in particular all those key workers on the front line who have kept this vital sector up and running during the pandemic for the use of other key workers and for the movement of essential supplies. I do not know the exact number, but certainly over 50 transport staff have died with Covid-19, the majority in London. We express our sincere condolences to their families and friends.

The devastating consequences of Covid-19 make this Statement on government guidance all the more important, as people are now being actively encouraged to go back to work if they cannot work at home. Indeed, some people who have been able to work from home are now being told by their employer to return to the workplace. Those going back to work are being told to avoid using public transport where possible and, instead, to travel by car, by bike or on foot.

However, this guidance is not a directive and contains a lot of “shoulds” and “coulds”. I am concerned about how practical implementing the guidance will be, in particular in respect of social distancing and maintaining a two-metre distance on public transport. Transport for London has said that, given the national requirement to maintain social distancing wherever possible, capacity on the Tube and buses will be reduced to around 13% to 15%, even once services are back to full strength.

Some 80% of those coming into central London to work come in by public transport. Even if that figure is halved by people still working from home and by more people coming in by car, there will not be the required capacity on public transport if social distancing is to be maintained, as indeed we have already seen. At times, the position will be the same in our other major cities, even though the percentage travelling to work by public transport is nowhere near the level in London.

How will social distancing be maintained? For example, a suburban train, bus or tram coming into the centre of London or another major city will start its journey from the outer terminus with a limited number of passengers. As more passengers join at each station or stop on the inward journey, the train, bus or tram will become more crowded. Under these guidelines, will the operator be expected to have staff at each station or bus stop deciding how many passengers can still be allowed to get on each arriving train, bus or tram, consistent with maintaining social distancing, and preventing passengers joining if maximum capacity still enabling social distancing to be maintained has already been reached? Will the operator, under these guidelines, be expected to stop passengers entering at each station if the platforms already have the maximum number of people on them waiting for a train, consistent with maintaining social distancing?

Are these examples of what is meant by maintaining social distancing wherever possible under these guidelines? If not, how will social distancing be maintained in reality if it is entirely a matter for each passenger whether or not they choose to get on a train, bus or tram that already has more people on board than is consistent with maintaining social distancing? What can the Government tell us today about the extent to which it has been possible to maintain social distancing this week on our trains, buses and trams as they have got nearer on their inward journeys to the centre of London and our other major cities?

For public transport staff, the train or station, bus, coach, ship, plane or taxi is their place of work rather than a means of getting to work. I am not clear how much guaranteed protection these guidelines provide them with. There is no provision for PPE to be provided for front-line staff. The Statement also says that wearing face coverings when using public transport could help protect other travellers, and presumably also staff, from coronavirus—but having said that, the guidance then only advises people to wear face coverings.

If a bus driver, for example, feels that more people have been regularly getting on their vehicle than is consistent with maintaining social distancing, and that their employer has not done as much as could have been done to prevent that situation arising, which they feel puts their health at risk, is it clear in the Government’s view whether the driver has the right to decline to continue working, without penalty, until the situation is resolved, whether by the employer or the intervention of an outside body?

I turn to the Government’s 14-day quarantine proposals, which cover apparently everyone coming from anywhere in the world unless via France or from Ireland. Will the Government publish the advice that says we need 14-day quarantine now but there has been no case for it previously? Why is France excluded and why, just as one example, does Gibraltar find itself included when it has had no deaths from coronavirus? How will the 14-day quarantine period be enforced? More than 18 million passengers have entered the UK since January. Will it be against the law for an individual not to be present at the address they have given? Who will ensure that they are, and which organisation or body has the resources to do this in the current situation?

I have real doubts about the practicality of applying some of these guidelines, in particular in relation to social distancing on public transport, and I suspect that many in the Government do too, unless the vast majority of people returning to work simply choose not to travel to work in this way, and particularly in London. Time will tell, but we can only hope that the guidelines do their job and we do not end up with a second spike in coronavirus cases which could affect anyone, including those of us taking part in this debate today.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I echo the thanks to all those key workers in transport industries who have kept vital supplies and vital workers moving during the last two months. As always, our economy sits on the shoulders of the transport sector. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I want especially to mention bus drivers and others who died, who were particularly exposed to the virus in their work.

I start by reminding everyone that last Sunday’s broadcast by the Prime Minister was essentially for England only. New rules and advice were announced, but they were for England. The situation is different in Wales and Scotland, so it is now a complex picture. That matters, of course, because transport crosses borders.

I very much welcome the investment announced in cycling and walking, specifically the emergency and temporary measures. While I am delighted to see the speed of response, I seek assurances from the Minister that this first tranche of money will be followed by long-term investment in improving the infrastructure for active travel. Indeed, the Department for Transport itself has estimated that it needs £5 billion to nearly double the number of trips using cycling from 2% to 4%. This announcement was of course for £2 billion. Can the Minister give us some detail on how the Government will work with local authorities to ensure that the money is indeed spent well and quickly?

I was also pleased to see the announcement about trials of electric scooters on public roads. Can the Minister tell me a little more about this? Will it involve only scooters for hire or include privately owned scooters?

For me, the peace and quiet in recent weeks, due to the lack of transport noise, has been wonderful. So too has been the improvement in air quality. The reduction in harmful emissions has allowed us to glimpse a view of how to tackle climate change. However, on Sunday, the Prime Minister fired the starting gun on the return to old habits when he advised people to get back in their cars and avoid public transport. I accept that there is an impossible conundrum with public transport. It is not possible to socially distance on most buses and trains; it is therefore essential that every other possible safety measure is taken seriously.

I was disappointed that the guidance issued by the Department for Transport to public transport operators was essentially a series of suggestions. There are many bus operators across the country, many of them small operators with limited capacity. Early in this crisis, the Government recognised the need to take centralised control of train services. I am not suggesting for a moment that they should nationalise bus services, but I am surprised that they have apparently not established a national forum for sharing good practice and providing guidance to bus operators. Will the Minister consider that?

On issues such as screens, frequent cleaning, going cash free and the availability of hand sanitiser, the guidance was very laissez-faire. It was merely a series of suggestions, which I fear can—and in some cases, will—be ignored. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out, the advice to passengers on face masks states:

“There are some circumstances when wearing a face covering may be marginally beneficial”.


It goes on to emphasise that it is “optional” and “not required by law”. The lesson of the past few weeks is that although we, the public, like to know why we are being told to do something, we also like clear instructions. That instruction on face covering would have been much clearer if it had simply said, “You are advised to cover your face in crowded places.”

I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard)
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, Amendment 32 follows similar lines to Amendment 31 but is much more specific. It amends the Air Navigation Order 2016 to introduce an obligation for geofencing equipment to be up to date and working. It provides that persons in charge who have electronic identification must not switch it off, and must have that identification on a register linked to their name. Currently, we still have drone users without registered drones. As I said earlier, there are good reasons why some people do not, and should not, have to register; the amendment allows for exceptions.

Basically, I have selected some simple steps that can be taken now. They do not anticipate future technological developments; they deal with what exists now. I accept that one might debate many things about how we control and use drones in the most sensible way, but these are simple, basic improvements to the control of drones by government legislation which benefit the whole of society, as I stated in my previous amendment. I do not wish to repeat what I said then. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I have an almost identical amendment to that moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I am sure that nobody wishes to hear me deliver virtually the same speech as the one delivered by the noble Baroness. I support what she has said and hope we will find that the Government do too.

Maritime Transport Access to Trade and Cabotage (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Monday 25th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis is not being moved because he is not here. He asked me to say that he unavoidably could not be in the House between 6.30 pm and 8 pm and therefore anticipated that he would not be able to move his amendment, as has proved to be the case.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. She referred to the comments made by the Joint Committee on SIs. I agree with its criticism, as there are issues to be addressed in the clarity of the Explanatory Memorandum.

The Government claim that this SI will not have an impact on shipping operators. Nevertheless, whatever reassurances the Minister has sought to give us today, it removes cabotage rights. The Government’s defence is that the measure will put EU operators on the same basis as those from other countries—indeed, the Minister has just repeated that—but we are working to the lowest common denominator in these matters and one can never be sure.

Looking at such SIs always brings up some interesting piece of history. The history point from this one is that we will no longer be a member of the Rhine convention. Our membership of it goes back to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, and the convention goes back even further, to the Congress of Vienna of 1815—so we are looking at something that we have been a member of for 100 years, while the convention itself is more than 200 years old. The problem we face is that we renounced our membership while we were members of the EU and we are members of it now only through our membership of the EU. It is interesting to think about the purpose of the Rhine convention. As the world’s oldest international organisation, the commission’s intention was remarkably modern; namely, to increase European prosperity by guaranteeing a high level of security for navigation of the Rhine. I do not think that the Government are suggesting that we rejoin the Rhine convention in our own right. I seek clarity from the Minister that this is the case.

The SI removes those EU regulations designed to prevent unfair practices, either between member states or between a member and a third country, and to enshrine rights to maritime cabotage. In a nutshell, the SI removes the right to cabotage for the remaining EU states which wish to operate in the UK because the Government fear that we will not be given reciprocal rights within the EU 27. At what stage are negotiations with the remaining 27 countries on cabotage? Is it a matter of ongoing consultation, or has it been shelved for the moment?

Once again, consultation has been very limited. My concern is that this SI relates to devolved issues. Do the Welsh and Scottish Governments remain satisfied? I cannot quite understand the amendment referred to in paragraph 6.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum—I am sure that it is my deficiency. I have read it a couple of times and it is not clear to me what amendment is referred to in relation to the Welsh and Scottish Governments.

The Government say that UK ships undertake relatively little cabotage in EU waters. I am happy to accept that, but can the Minister give us some clarity on the value of such cabotage, the volume of it and the percentage of ships undertaking it so that we can get some handle on the level of activity concerned?

The Government seem to have a nonsensical position on this issue. They say that they do not want to restrict cabotage but are acting to delete guaranteed rights. It is another example of an inconsistent approach in these SIs. Some of them simply smooth it over—it will be the same system after a no-deal Brexit as there was before; we are going to tolerate what may be an inconsistency between the attitude of the EU 27 and our approach to transport issues. However, in this SI, because we might not get cabotage rights in Europe, we will take them away from EU countries operating in the UK. The SI takes away basic international maritime rights and it does not set out with any clarity what the Government intend to replace them with.

Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson]

My disappointment with the SI that we had a week or so ago was definitely with the lack of certainty about which criteria the Government would use. The Government adroitly managed to give themselves the broadest possible set of criteria and we are no nearer knowing how exactly those permits will be applied. The industry is worried as a result.

There has already been a degree of reorganisation within the aviation industry as airlines previously registered in the UK have moved abroad for their registration, with the inevitable drift of at least some jobs abroad. It is important that we bear in mind that this additional bureaucracy—the additional requirements as a result of Brexit—will put our expertise in such an important aviation market at a disadvantage.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised the issue of wet leasing, which, as the Minister explained, is when an airline releases an aircraft and its crew and so on. This is usually done at busy times or in exceptional circumstances. If the aircraft is not registered in the UK, the airline has to satisfy certain safety criteria. The airlines are concerned that this should be the subject of a reciprocal agreement with EU countries. Can the Minister explain what progress the Department for Transport has made in its discussions on this?

Public service obligations apply when a service would be uneconomical but is needed for economic and social reasons. They usually apply to far-flung places such as the Scottish islands. In future, such services could be operated by UK carriers and by others with cabotage rights—although, to be honest, that would be unlikely with no deal. These are sensitive and complex issues of state aid. As someone from Wales, I know that there has been a long debate on why rights are granted on some Scottish routes but similar rights were not granted in Wales. Could the Minister give us a little more detail on this?

State aid rules were previously adjudicated by the European Commission. This is a complex and controversial area, but the distance of the European Commission in power terms from the decisions that it made neutralised the issue to a large extent. Those powers will now be given to the CMA. What resources will it be given to deal with this? I also warn the Minister that those things are likely to become much more sharply controversial.

Paragraph 7.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum deals with the allocation of scarce capacity. The 2007 regulations dealt with air service agreements between EU members and third countries. Scarce capacity occurs when there are restrictions on the frequency of flights. The Explanatory Memorandum includes a political declaration that the UK Government will always seek to lift or remove such a cap but will hold a hearing to allocate frequencies if that is not possible. What is the legal force of that statement? It seems that it is simply a political declaration. It is a statement of intent by the current Government, but they cannot bind their successors. I would like some clarification on that.

Finally, it would be helpful, as we sit here week after week wading our way through dozens of these SIs, to be able to see the full context of where we are on air services. Maybe the Minister can tell us what other air services SIs we are waiting for.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and content of these regulations, which set out the contingency measures for the licensing and oversight of flights to and from the UK in the event of no deal with the European Union. UK carriers will require a route licence, as well as the operating licence that is currently required under EU law, for operations beyond the UK. Air carriers from the European Economic Area will also have to obtain a foreign carrier permit to operate in the UK.

In the event of there being no deal with the European Union, UK and EU airlines will no longer have the automatic right to operate air services between the UK and the EU without the need for advance permission from individual states. In this scenario, the Government expect to grant permission to EU carriers to operate to UK airports and for this to be reciprocated by EU states granting permission to UK air carriers to operate to points in the EU. Failing such a multilateral agreement, the Government’s intention would be to seek bilateral arrangements with individual states. I know that this point has been raised before but I raise it again: why do the Government believe that such bilateral arrangements between the UK and individual states could actually be put in place in the short time left even between now and 29 March 2019, let alone between early or mid-December and the end of March 2019?

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

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Department for Transport (Fees) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord has found an ingenious way of adding an extra question and I will pass it on to the Minister.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and content of the SI, which we will not oppose. In the light of concerns that have been expressed about the possible effect on fees in future and other possible impacts, will the Minister gives us some clarification on the consultation? Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“A consultation is not considered necessary as the amendments are minor and technical in nature and do not impact upon either business or the individual”.


Does that mean that there has been literally no consultation, or have some bodies or organisations been consulted? If so, which organisations or bodies have been consulted about this SI and its contents?

As the Minister said, the regulations amend the Department for Transport’s fees orders covering the road traffic field. Fees orders do not set fees but specify functions and their costs which may be taken into account in setting fees. These regulations amend those orders by removing references to the Secretary of State having functions to carry out to comply with EU obligations or requirements on the basis that we are withdrawing from the European Union. Those functions referred to in the fees orders will no longer be carried out under EU legislation but will continue to be carried out by the Secretary of State under domestic law as provided for by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As the Minister said, the functions currently carried out by the Secretary of State under EU legislation are those relating to international road haulage permits, type approval certification, tachograph calibration centres, international road passenger transport authorisations, driver licensing, vehicle registration, licences to operate public service vehicles and licences to operate goods vehicles.

The SI relates to a situation where we have withdrawn from the European Union. It would appear that it covers a no-deal situation and our intended departure on 29 March next year. What is the position if there is a deal approved by Parliament and that deal entails a transition period with continued membership of the customs union and/or the single market for an unspecified time or other provisions that do not provide for a clean break on 29 March next year? What is the need for this SI in that scenario? We may not in reality have withdrawn from the EU because we would still be bound to accept that some or all of its legislation applies to us. We would not be able to alter it unilaterally and we would also be bound by any subsequent amendments made to that legislation by the European Union pending our full withdrawal.

What then would be the relevance of an SI, such as the one we are now considering, coming into effect on 29 March next year, which asserts in paragraph 2.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“The relevant EU related functions specified by the Fees Order will, after EU exit, no longer be carried out in pursuance of EU legislation”,


when, if there is a deal, these functions could have to be, including to the extent, for a possible period of time unknown, that we would also have to abide by EU legislation that was further amended by the EU without our agreement? Would it not be better, with a decision on a deal apparently close, to withdraw this SI and wait until we know whether there is a deal and, if there is, produce an SI which reflects the reality and terms of that deal? It is, after all, not the fault of this House if the Government are having difficulty adhering to their intended timetable for progress in negotiations with the EU, as appears to be the case. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out what the impact of a deal with a transition period could be on the provisions and relevance of this SI, and whether during the transition period agreements could be reached or arrangements made that could have an impact on the terms and relevance of this SI.

I turn to one other point. The Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act gave the Secretary of State the power to introduce regulations to charge fees for international road transport permits if a new permit scheme is required, as UK-issued Community licences will no longer be valid in the EU if we leave, unless an agreement is reached otherwise. The Government have previously said that any permit fees would only cover the cost of any new scheme and that the detail on fees would be consulted on later in 2018 when the outcome of the negotiations was clearer. Has the consultation started, or has the lack of clarity at the moment over how the negotiations with the EU will end precluded the commencement of the consultation?

Since an issue of concern is that hauliers or taxpayers will incur additional costs if a new scheme is required, does that not underline the importance of continuing with the Community licensing system? Once again, would it not therefore be better to be discussing this SI once the outcome of the negotiations was clearer and the SI itself could reflect that outcome? The SI is not intended to come into force for another five and a half months, yet we are being asked to agree to it now when it is not clear to what extent we will or will not be continuing to follow EU legislation, including any subsequent amendments to the legislation, after the SI is intended to come into effect on 29 March 2019.

Railways: Update

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the House of Commons. We welcome and advocate continuing investment in our rail industry and measures to enhance its role and importance in the economy of this country and in the lives of our citizens, including the reopening of some lines closed under the Beeching cuts.

The extent to which the content of the Statement and the associated strategic vision document will deliver those objectives is debatable. We have a Secretary of State who is very good at making grandiose statements about future rail developments—in fact, almost as good at doing that as he is in quietly announcing the abandonment or postponement of schemes that he has previously championed. No Government have cancelled or postponed more railway electrification schemes, or parts of schemes that they have previously espoused, than this one. On the roads, the policy is to reduce diesel mileage; on the railways, it is apparently to increase it above that previously planned. What is the Government’s strategic vision for rail in respect of the further electrification of our railways? I think the Statement was silent on that issue.

The Statement was pretty thin, too, on the issue of fares, as is the associated document called “a strategic vision for rail”. Fares have been deliberately and regularly increased by well above the rate of inflation in order to reduce the percentage of operating costs not covered by fares, and thus the costs to the Government, which they transfer on to the backs of commuters in particular. What is the Government’s strategic vision on fares? What is their objective in relation to the percentage of operating costs that should be covered by fares? How can you have a credible strategic vision without saying what your future intentions are in respect of the level of fares, fare increases in the future and the objectives that you are seeking to achieve and why?

The Statement made reference to the next South Eastern franchise and referred to providing space for additional passengers. However, that is not a strategic vision for addressing overcrowding in our railways. There are many other examples of overcrowding on our rail network, not solely in London and the south-east. Since the Government have chosen to describe their document as “a strategic vision for rail”, what are the objectives in relation to reducing overcrowding? What is the end game in respect of overcrowding and its elimination that the strategic vision is seeking to achieve? Just referring to new schemes, which may or may not be abandoned or postponed at some stage in the future, does not constitute a strategic vision against which success or failure in delivery can be judged.

The Statement set out proposals and intentions for tinkering with the organisational structure of the railways. It referred to a proposed alliance on the east coast main line, running intercity trains and track operation under one management. We had a similar arrangement between Stagecoach and Network Rail in the south-west, which did not seem to prove an unmitigated success. Why do the Government now think this proposed alliance will prove any more successful? What are the specific objectives that it will be expected to deliver under the strategic vision for rail?

As the Government thrash around to find an organisational structure for our railways and the train company franchises that they deem acceptable, they may care to look at the structure of the London Underground, which combines track and trains and has generated—in the public sector—significant increases in the numbers of passengers. It is also a system under which all the revenue goes back into providing and improving services for the travelling public, which cannot be said for our railway network as a whole. Indeed, so concerned was the Secretary of State about the success of Transport for London and London Underground in running services in the public sector, and the revitalisation of the London Overground network since it was taken over by TfL, that he felt it too politically dangerous to agree to the transfer of any further rail services within the GLA area to TfL—not much of a strategic vision there.

This Statement does not represent a strategic vision. It is silent on too many issues, including future fares policy, and silent about too many overall objectives to be such a strategic vision. It is, frankly, more a hotchpotch of separate announcements, some of them regurgitated, since they have been made previously and do not represent anything new. While I reiterate what I said earlier about welcoming new investment in our railways if it materialises, tinkering with the structure, which seems to be the Government’s modus operandi at present, will not address rail’s urgent organisational and ownership problems. Indeed, to the extent that making the structural changes proposed deflects the attentions of managers and staff from the objective of running reliable and efficient services, tinkering with the structure is more likely, in fact, simply to add to the problems.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, one thing on which we agree with the Government is that the answer to improving the railways does not lie in renationalisation. I am disappointed in this strategic vision. It is largely a restatement of existing announcements, some of which I recognise from the days of the coalition.

However, on these Benches, we welcome the commitment to assess transport projects on the basis of their potential for unlocking future growth, rather than on a simplistic assessment of current overcrowding and journey time saved. I want to ask the Minister about the announcement on reopening old lines, which had a lot of publicity this morning—but it is obvious that no new money is involved, as otherwise we would have been told. The reference in the Statement is to partnership with metro mayors. That is usually a code for saying that local government will foot the bill. What are the terms on which these proposals are made? Where will the money come from and how advanced are the plans, with specific examples in mind?

This week, the Minister replied to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, setting out total transport expenditure across each region of England. I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking the Question. The Answer, which I recommend to your Lordships, makes extraordinary reading. Capital expenditure in the last year is a total of £16 billion across the whole of England, £6 billion of which was spent in London. Only £520 million was spent in the north-east, and £666 million in the east Midlands. This entrenches the inequality and the divide in our society, and I am disappointed that this Statement does not provide new announcements on projects for the north and the Midlands that are desperately needed. What are the Government going to do to change that balance of spending within the country?

Finally, there is no reference here to electrification projects. The stalling of electrification and the abandonment of those plans was a huge blow to those poorer parts of the UK, including south Wales—west of Cardiff being an example. It is important that they are given the renewed investment that electrification with provide. That will also improve the quality of our air.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

Amendment 2 is another amendment that we discussed in Committee. Currently, the Bill provides that the regulator must take into account,

“any environmental objectives set by the Secretary of State”,

when exercising the powers given to it under the Bill. Our amendment adds a wider environmental duty; namely, that the regulator must take into account,

“the effect on the environment and on local communities of activities connected with the operation of spaceflight activities or the operation of a spaceport as licensed under this Act”.

In other words, this consideration would not be solely dependent on what the Secretary of State of the day decided should or should not be laid down as environmental objectives for the regulator to take into account.

The Government were not enthusiastic about our amendment in Committee, arguing that environmental and local community considerations were already covered by the provisions of Clause 2(2)(c) and (e) and local planning processes. However, the Government appeared to accept that a person with exemption from an operator licence would not be covered by some of the provisions of Clause 2(2) since the regulator would not be involved in issuing a licence.

The importance of taking into account the effect of spaceflight activities and the operation of a spaceport on the environment and local communities needs to be made much clearer in the Bill. It is too important an issue to be left open to potentially different interpretations of the less than precise wording currently in the Bill or to the whim of Secretaries of State as to what environmental objectives they decide to set or not to set. I expressed the hope in Committee that the Government might feel able to be more positive on this issue during the Bill’s later stages. In moving my amendment, I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate some movement on this point when she responds.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I was pleased to be able to add my name to Amendment 2. Before I speak to it, I welcome the Government’s Amendment 9, because it adds to Schedule 1 both noise and emissions as factors that should be taken into account when granting a licence. That is a step forward. However, it is still a narrow interpretation of the problems that I anticipate local communities and the slightly wider area might encounter. If these spaceports are a success—across the House we very much hope that they will be—they will have an impact on local communities and on the environment that those communities currently enjoy. These are by definition remote and peaceful places at this moment, and they will be significantly less remote and less peaceful after the development of a spaceport.

Other potential issues include the following. First, there is the issue of visual amenity in what could well be beautiful areas. These will be large installations and will not easily blend into the landscape. Secondly, there is the impact on local roads. I do not know the situation in Scotland, but I know that the roads in Wales are hardly even small motorways in that area. We are talking about moving large, wide loads across the country and along roads, often moving them slowly on to the site, and that will be disruptive. I remember how the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in a memorable phrase, described a rocket as a controlled explosion. There is also potentially air pollution, as well as noise pollution.

Finally, I point to the basics of many of the issues and problems arising from planning applications for large or even small developments. Clearing a site to establish a spaceport could well impact on existing wildlife, and the ongoing use of the spaceport could, for example, disturb nesting birds.

I do not want to be a doom-monger but we need to be realistic. The enthusiasm of the Welsh and Scottish Governments may not be shared by local people. Any of us here who have been local councillors— I was a councillor for 17 years, albeit a long time ago—know that what I have outlined are routine planning issues that, appropriately, get in the way of wholesale development that does not take into consideration the amenities of local people and the environment beyond. Spaceports should not be exempt from the rules, and that needs to be flagged in this Bill.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I recognise noble Lords’ concerns that there are currently no specific provisions in the Bill regarding the environmental impacts of spaceports and spaceflight activities on local communities, particularly in relation to noise and emissions. However, Clause 2 requires the regulator to take into account the environmental objectives set by the Government. I know that some noble Lords have raised concerns that future objectives cannot be predicted—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised that again today—but the inclusion of that requirement was intended to promote environmental protection, as the regulator will have to take account of existing guidance, such as Defra’s air quality plan.

As noble Lords will be aware, there already exists a comprehensive body of environmental and planning legislation that spaceports and spaceflight operators will need to comply with independently of the requirements under the Bill. For example, an environmental impact assessment may be required for airport-related development under Schedule 2 to the environmental impact assessment regulations where it is,

“likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location”.

In such cases, the local planning authority will be obliged to scrutinise the environmental impact, taking into account the concerns of local communities such as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has just raised. An environmental assessment will be required as part of any airspace changes.

However, there might be circumstances where a particular activity could be carried out without the need for an environmental impact assessment under planning and airspace rules. The purpose of Amendment 9 is to put on the face of the Bill a licence condition that the regulator could impose—for example, where an environmental impact or other assessment has not already been undertaken.

I appreciate that this amendment does not impose a mandatory requirement for the spaceport or spaceflight operator to make an environmental assessment; nor does it require the regulator to take into account environmental and local impacts, as Amendment 2 seeks to do. However, it makes very clear the Government’s intention that some form of assessment of noise and emissions should take place, and it does this without creating requirements in the Bill that may duplicate existing requirements to carry out environmental assessments under other enactments.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords of the Government’s intention of ensuring that environmental impacts are assessed, either as part of the planning process or as a condition of a licence under the Bill. However, I am aware that your Lordships do not think that this goes far enough, as they have made clear today—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made a very fair point about roads and road access. Therefore, I assure the House that the Government are considering introducing in the other place a further amendment that will require spaceport and spaceflight applicants to submit a noise and emissions assessment, and that regulators take this into account when deciding the licence application. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, in the Government’s Oral Statement on Monarch Airlines of 9 October, the Secretary of State said that,

“right now our efforts are rightly focused on getting employees into new jobs and getting passengers home. After that, our effort will turn to working through any reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this position again. We need to look at all the options—not just ATOL, but whether it is possible to enable airlines to wind down in an orderly manner and look after their customers themselves, without the need for the Government to step in. We will be putting a lot of effort into that in the months ahead”.—[Official Report, 9/10/17; Commons, cols. 27-28.]

The demise of Monarch Airlines, along with the Secretary of State’s Statement, has raised questions about the current UK financial protection regime generally for air travellers. The ATOL scheme is intended to ensure that those who purchase ATOL-protected flights and holidays are flown home at no extra cost if an ATOL company fails. However, the scheme does not offer that protection to customers who buy airline seats from airlines which are not within the ATOL scheme.

The Government have estimated that the proportion of Monarch Airlines passengers affected who were covered by the ATOL scheme and ATOL protection amounted to some 10% to 15%. As we know, the Government decided to step in and repatriate Monarch’s passengers regardless of whether they were among the small minority who were protected by the ATOL scheme, a decision which would appear at least to raise questions about the current scheme and arrangements.

While this Bill will update existing powers to enable different and separate arrangements to be established to align with new practices, such as linked travel arrangements, there remains a gap in consumer protection for flight-only seats sold by airlines, despite—I understand, perhaps incorrectly—the industry and the CAA’s previous calls for such a protection regime. The Bill does nothing to address that gap.

The amendment, whose intention has the support of ABTA, would through its proposed deletions to the 1982 Act provide an opportunity for the Government to say how they intend to review and update the existing arrangements and regulations, particularly in respect of flight-only travel under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, to ensure the protection of passengers in the event of a future airline failure—which as I understand it from the Secretary of State’s Statement of 9 October is, at least in part, what the Government intend and want to do.

It is really a matter for the Government, in consultation with the industry and consumers, to determine the precise framework and model for delivering any new protection regime. The Government appear to be looking for a new arrangement which would ensure that passengers in any subsequent Monarch situation are flown home at no extra cost but at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer and, presumably, to the airlines in particular and the travel industry in general.

A substantial proportion of the failure costs incurred in the ATOL scheme over the years has related to airline failures: Clarksons with Court Line; Laker and Arrowsmith Holidays with Laker Airways; ILG with Air Europe; XL Leisure Group with XL Airways; and now Monarch Travel Group with Monarch Airlines. These failures have also led to significant costs being incurred either by customers not protected under the ATOL scheme or by the taxpayer. Travel companies are also affected by the failure of an airline as they are liable for all aspects of a package holiday under the package travel regulations. While the exclusion of airlines from a scheme of protection means that their customers are not protected against financial loss, in practice those passengers—both British and those in other European countries such as Italy and Germany—have been repatriated at a cost to taxpayers and other industry participants. This surely adds to confusion when failure occurs, particularly around what is and what is not protected under the ATOL scheme. There is also a lack of clarity around the meaning of the ATOL-protected branding and ABTA has consistently called for it to be made much clearer that ATOL protection applies only to a particular set of holiday arrangements rather than the company as a whole.

The amendment is designed to provide the Government with the opportunity to say how they will end the area of exposure to the Government, passengers and taxpayers caused by unprotected airline seat-only sales, and to consider what a new regulatory framework might look like in the event of insolvency. In so doing, it would also enable the Government to fulfil the Secretary of State’s commitment of 9 October to,

“look at all the options”,

and,

“ensure passengers do not find themselves in this position again”.

The Government have said they are going to consult and look at all the options as part of the process of,

“working through the reforms necessary to ensure passengers do not find themselves in this position again”.

Indeed, the Government said in their 9 October Statement that they would be putting a lot of effort into this,

“in the weeks and months ahead”.

More than two weeks since that Statement, have the Government made official approaches to the industry and consumers with a view to commencing consultation about the sorts of mechanisms beyond ATOL which could be implemented to address the issue and consequences to passengers of future airline insolvency? What will be the timespan of such consultation? Which organisations, companies and bodies do the Government intend to consult, and who from beyond and outside the industry do they also intend to approach? Finally, by when do the Government expect to reach conclusions about the actions and changes they intend to make to deliver on the Secretary of State’s promise following the demise of Monarch airlines that,

“passengers do not find themselves in this position again”?

Presumably that commitment was not made without at least some idea of the possible ways of achieving that particular goal.

We certainly cannot continue with a situation where nobody is sure whether the Government will or will not fly people back home in future at no extra cost in the event of another airline failure, and where there is also an apparent lack of clarity for many passengers and potential passengers under the existing arrangements and ATOL scheme about their rights or lack of rights and their protections or lack of protections. In moving my amendment, I express the hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers to the points and questions I have made and asked in the light of the specific commitments given by the Secretary of State on future objectives and intentions in his Statement of 9 October. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because I felt that it raised some important issues for the Government to look at. I also felt it would be genuinely useful if the views of the Government on the progress made so far were put on record.

At the time of the failure of Monarch Airlines the Minister, in his Statement to the House, emphasised that it was the largest repatriation since D-day. But I put in contrast what the airline industry said in my discussions with it: that Monarch was a small airline and that the problems would arise if a big airline were to fail. Of course, those I spoke to believe that their whole industry is in robust health and that Monarch is definitely not an example of its state generally. The point is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just said, airlines have failed before and undoubtedly, at some point in future, something like this will happen again.

We are looking here at whether the Government have set some kind of precedent by bringing everyone back, for understandable and excellent reasons. I think everyone supports the way that was done and the reasons for doing it. But the point is that if and when it happens again people will expect a similar response and, for that to be possible, there needs to be a scheme. The consumer understands that there is a need for a scheme and understands the ATOL scheme. What the Monarch passengers probably did not understand was why some of them were covered by something and others were not. In the end, the Government need to look at the new ways of working—the new ways in which travel is offered—and present a new scheme which covers them. In the days when the ATOL scheme was devised, package holidays covered a huge percentage of the market. That is very much less the case now.

It is also important to look not just at the passengers who are affected by this. One airline’s failure can often adversely affect a number of package holiday operators. If one airline fails, several package holiday operators will find their business seriously affected. There is a serious knock-on effect within the industry from this and it needs to be addressed. I shall listen to the Minister’s answer with interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

The Minister has already referred to the importance of an airport strategy, and the Government are working on that. As the noble Lord states, there is clearly an interrelationship between the availability of flights and the availability of package holidays.

We need clear wording akin to the words used in the ATOL protection. That phrase “ATOL protection” works because over many years the consumer has come to understand what it means, partly through government advertising, partly through the work of consumer groups and, sadly, partly through the hard lesson of the failure of holiday companies. We need similar clear wording for any new scheme, and I fear that “linked travel arrangements” is not a phrase that trips off the tongue or that will be instantly understood by the holiday-buying public.

I turn to an issue that I have raised before: the variation in protection between credit cards, debit cards and PayPal. We might want to pay for a flight by debit card because in many cases, using a credit card costs additional money—a fee for the privilege of using it. However, it is important that at the point where consumers choose how to pay, they are warned that if they pay by debit card they will not get the same protection as if they pay by credit card. It is important that we modernise the system. I am not sure that this Bill is the place to do that, but it is important that the Government take the point away and look at it.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I add our support to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I do not intend to go through all the points she has so ably made, but I share her view that there seems to be a lack of clarity over the rights and protections—or lack of them—available, as the amendment says, to those,

“purchasing flights, package holidays and linked travel arrangements”.

Certainly, in some adverts, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has already referred, the situation is not made clear. So we agree with the objective of the amendment, which is designed to make much clearer for people, when booking flights, package holidays or other travel arrangements, exactly what their rights are and are not, and what protections are and are not available.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I just add one or two brief comments to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, quite rightly said, seeking to explore further what the impact of withdrawal from the European Union might or might not have.

At Second Reading, the Minister made reference to the issue and said:

“The Government’s policy to exit the EU does not affect the UK’s membership of the European Space Agency. The UK has a strong and healthy space economy with an international outlook. We have a long history of collaboration and participation in European space programmes and missions through the European Space Agency. The Government will continue to take an active role in European space programmes, supporting UK industry in its bids to win contracts overseas and developing our national capability to keep the UK competitive in the global market”—[Official Report, 12/7/17; cols. 1268-69.]


Those were clearly welcome statements, but I am not sure that they went to the heart of the question: namely, what impact could our withdrawal from the European Union have on spaceflight and the space industry in this country? Apparently, there has been talk in government circles of the possibility of leaving on the basis of no agreement at all being reached with the European Union on the terms. Can the Minister spell out what the consequences might be for the space industry and the level of co-operation that currently takes place if we ended up withdrawing from the European Union without any agreement? Perhaps he could also compare and contrast that with the situation whereby we left with what I think is known in the official jargon as a soft Brexit.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly made reference to the fact that the industry would like a degree of clarity and certainty for the future. Indeed, that was the Government’s argument for bringing forward the Bill at a time when we know nothing about the regulations, on which consultation will not take place until next year and which will not be produced until 2019. Presumably, if the Government are saying that the Bill is needed because the industry requires clarity, they will use this opportunity to offer the industry clarity on the impact of our leaving the European Union on the space industry and spaceflight in this country.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, there are 38,000 jobs in the UK in the space sector, and they are top-quality, well-paid, highly skilled jobs. Brexit threatens the majority of those jobs, both directly and indirectly. Although the Bill is welcome and in itself uncontentious, it does nothing of any significance to plug the gaps that are threatening those jobs.

How and why does Brexit threaten those jobs? Two sets of work are ongoing on which we rely for a very large part of our jobs in this country relating to the space industry; they are funded by the Galileo and Copernicus projects. The UK Government have said that they want to remain part of those projects but they have failed to make a binding commitment to them. The problem is that talk of a no-deal Brexit seriously undermines the Government’s verbal assurances on this issue. They need to make it clear that they want to buy into those programmes in the future—beyond 2019. Clearly that could not happen in a no-deal scenario.

Let us be clear that we do very well out of EU space activity. In terms of what is technically called “geo return”, we put in 12.5% of funding and get back 14% of spend. We are talking about very large amounts of money. When applying for funds, companies now have to make it clear to the EU how they will ensure that after March 2019 they will still have a base in an EU country. This is a new requirement. The impact is that those companies with other EU sites are leading their bids from there, not from the UK. Those companies without another base are obviously thinking of moving to another EU country. Because there is such a long lead-in time in this industry, these decisions are being made now or in the very near future.

The second factor is the supply chain, a lot of which is foreign inward investment into the UK, and there is some current rethinking on that—so more good jobs in the UK are at risk. A major aspect of this problem is the free movement of people. The industry relies a lot on EU nationals, many of whom are already leaving. But British staff, working in the industry, are also looking abroad for opportunities and we cannot afford that brain drain. It is essential to the aerospace sector as a whole that there is free movement. The kind of visa for highly skilled workers that the Prime Minister has already talked about simply would not suit their needs. They need flexible, long-duration visas because they require staff to be so mobile and flexible. Their needs are very much like those for the rest of the aerospace sector.

For example, as many noble Lords will know, Airbus has plants in Toulouse, Broughton and a number of other places. A technician might arrive at work in Broughton one morning and be told that he is off to Toulouse by lunchtime and will be back tomorrow or the day after. Airbus, as a company, moved employees 80,000 times last year between the EU and the UK. It has its own jet shuttle between sites. The kind of visa that the Prime Minister talked about does not start to tackle that problem. The perception in Europe is that we have already left. So whatever the Government’s good intentions with this Bill, if you hollow out what we already have in our space industry in the way in which I have outlined, there is not much point in this Bill. We simply cannot afford to keep losing such high-value industries and high-quality jobs. It is important that the Government persuade us here today that they have already taken on board the key issues that we have raised in relation to Brexit and our relationship in the future with the EU.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I apologise for my late arrival; I had to be on the Front Bench for the Home Office Private Notice Question in the Chamber. I do apologise for the delay I have caused.

I will be brief in speaking to the amendments. Their purpose is to raise the issue of linked travel and flight-only arrangements in relation to ATOL protection. In respect of linked travel arrangements, the Minister said that the Bill would extend protection to consumers making these less formal holiday arrangements. Can he say which clause or subsection says this specifically, or is this a matter that the Government intend to address in regulations? If it is the latter and the Government intend to address it in regulations, why not include the extension of the protection to linked travel arrangements on the face of the Bill, as provided for in my Amendment 2? I take it that linked travel arrangements will be quite significant. Will the Minister let me know, either now or later, what proportion of what I would describe as ATOL sales the Government think linked travel arrangements will make up? Are they contemplating a new separate air travel trust for linked travel arrangements, in view of later clauses?

Turning to flight-only arrangements, one issue that surfaced during the debate on the Monarch Airlines Statement on Monday was the very low percentage of Monarch passengers covered by the existing ATOL provisions. I think the Minister said it was likely to be some 10% to 15%, and that this percentage was unlikely to have been much higher even under the provisions of the revised EU directive and the Bill. As I understand it, that is because nearly all Monarch Airlines passengers were flight-only. The Government decided, particularly because of the numbers involved, to provide flights back home for those Monarch passengers stranded abroad. This is a power the Government have but as I understand it, it is entirely up to them when and if they use it. Surely that can only create a degree of uncertainty, which is not a desirable state of affairs, certainly not for stranded airline passengers.

I put it to the Minister that the Government should consider setting out clear criteria against which they will determine whether to provide flights back home for stranded flight-only passengers whose airline has become insolvent or, alternatively, consider extending the ATOL protection scheme to flight-only passengers, who made up the vast majority left stranded by the demise of Monarch Airlines. Perhaps in that regard, the Minister could give an estimate of the cost to travel organisations of extending the ATOL protection scheme in this way.

Can the Minister expand on the paragraph in the Government’s Statement on Monarch Airlines on Monday? It reads:

“But then our efforts will turn to working through any reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this position again. We need to look at all the options, not just ATOL, but also whether it is possible for airlines to be able to wind down in an orderly manner and look after their customers themselves without the need for the Government to step in. We will be putting a lot of effort into this in the weeks and months ahead”.—[Official Report, 9/10/17; col. 46.]


What do the Government include in “look at all the options”? Can I take it that this will include flight-only passengers not ending up being stranded abroad with no automatic provision available to fly them back home at no additional cost? I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his remarks, which have provided a useful introduction to his thinking. Clause 1(3) inserts new subsection (1E) into Section 71 the 1982 Act to clarify that the Secretary of State can make regulations to exempt any form of flight-only arrangement from ATOL. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, most of the passengers in the Monarch situation were not covered by ATOL arrangements, but it inevitably leads one to reconsider the situation and what needs to be done—we will refer to this later on. The key question is whether it is desirable for flights-only to be covered by some kind of scheme of the ATOL type. That would inevitably mean an addition to the cost of flights. In the case of low-cost airlines, it would be a significant addition to the cost of a short-haul flight. In a situation of what I think the Minister will agree is brutal price competition, I suspect, although I do not know, that the airlines would not welcome any additional costs of this nature.

On Monday, the Minister emphasised the massive scale of the repatriation that the Government, via the CAA, have undertaken, and it has been a very effective way of dealing with the problem. However, Monarch was a small airline. It might have been, as the headlines said, the biggest repatriation since D-Day, but it was a small airline that went bust. When one combines the size and complexity of that situation with the issue of linked travel arrangements and the possible development of such a concept, we have to consider what sort of compensation should be available to people throughout the market. We are in a rapidly changing market and just because airlines seem to be in robust health at the moment, it does not mean, in the uncertain future we face, that this will necessarily continue in the decades ahead. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on what forms of compensation the Government are considering for those in situations where airlines go into liquidation, and by contrast what compensation should be considered for those who still stick to the old-style package holiday arrangements—if I can call them that.

Monarch Airlines

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Monday 9th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the Commons by the Secretary of State. I also appreciate that the Minister has himself been directly involved in these issues as the Aviation Minister.

The demise of Monarch Airlines has caused a great many problems and much distress for both passengers and certainly some 2,000 staff who have lost their jobs. Could the Minister say how many Monarch staff have so far either found alternative employment or, perhaps more realistically at this stage, been offered alternative employment?

The government Statement said that the CAA had essentially set up one of the UK’s largest airlines to conduct this operation. I agree that this is a very good example of how a state-run enterprise can deliver effectively and efficiently. Those involved in bringing home Monarch customers left stranded by its demise are to be congratulated, not least the staff of the Civil Aviation Authority. There are, though, a few questions I would like to raise.

First, how long before the demise of Monarch Airlines did the CAA start to organise aircraft to bring stranded passengers home, since concerns have been expressed about the reality that Monarch Airlines was still selling flights a few hours before it ceased trading? If the CAA knew that Monarch Airlines was on the verge of failing, and it must have done otherwise there would not have been the issue over renewing the licence, why did it not warn the public of the potential adverse consequences of continuing to purchase Monarch flights? Is this part of a general issue that the Government are looking at in the light of the comment in the penultimate paragraph of the Statement that they intend to look at all the options for ensuring that passengers do not find themselves in this situation again?

Secondly, the organisation that took over Monarch in 2014, Greybull Capital, a private investment firm, frankly has form when it comes to the collapse of companies—My Local convenience stores and Comet, for example. Bearing in mind that the taxpayer is having to pick up at least part of the price tag of Monarch’s failure, do the Government intend to consider what role they should play in future when companies are being taken over in situations where the taxpayer is likely to have to pick up a not insignificant part of the bill if the company that has been taken over then fails?

Thirdly, I understand that KPMG was appointed to seek buyers for Monarch’s short-haul business prior to the airline’s collapse, and was actively doing so. If that is correct, is it also correct that KPMG is now acting as Monarch’s administrator, and, if so, does that not raise questions about at least potential conflicts of interest?

Fourthly, I understand that that there was a report in yesterday’s Sunday Times suggesting that the £165 million rescue package to Monarch last year was largely funded by Boeing as part of a cut-price deal for an order for aircraft. Is that suggestion correct or incorrect? It has also been claimed that Monarch had £50 million in the bank. Is that correct and, if so, who will get that money, and indeed the money from the value of Monarch’s landing slots, claimed to be £60 million?

Fifthly, the Statement says that the Government are currently engaged in discussions with the relevant credit and debit card providers with a view to recouping from them some of the cost to taxpayers of what the Government describe as repatriation flights. What is the current cost to taxpayers of these flights? What is the likely final cost before any money is recouped? What is the legal position of credit and debit card providers, and indeed the other travel providers with which the Government have said they are in discussions, when it comes to paying the cost of those government repatriation flights?

Sixthly, and finally, the government Statement says that the CAA’s responsibility for bringing passengers back extends only to customers whose trips are covered by ATOL, but that the Government instructed the CAA to ensure that all those currently abroad were offered an alternative flight home, although I understand this does not apply to those returning after next Sunday. Perhaps the Government could say if, and if so why, this latter point is the situation. In the light of the penultimate paragraph of the Government’s Statement, which referred to looking at the options and trying to prevent passengers being, to put it mildly, inconvenienced in this way again, there appear to be issues about the Government’s future intentions, to be pursued perhaps more appropriately during the Committee stage of the ATOL Bill on Wednesday.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement and for having provided the opportunity to talk to him about this issue following the failure of Monarch.

Clearly, this is a massive task and our thanks must go to those who are engaged in bringing people back to Britain. This is probably the first failure of a major UK company that can be directly ascribed to the impact of the falling pound caused by the Brexit vote. I fear that it will not be the last such failure and that the Government will have to intervene to alleviate the impact of Brexit-induced failure on numerous occasions in the future.

It is true that other factors, such as increased costs of security, were involved in this situation, but the falling value of the pound increased the costs of fuel, handling charges and lease payments in a way that proved fatal for this company. So, despite a 14% growth in the number of passengers travelling with Monarch, the company was not viable any more and nearly 1,900 Monarch employees have lost their jobs. Our sympathy must go to those who have been made redundant. It also needs to go to those customers who experienced distress and will face considerable financial loss, as many are not covered by the ATOL scheme.

My questions to the Minister are as follows. First, rumours about the financial instability of Monarch had been swirling around for weeks, yet it continued trading. I received an email a couple of days before the company collapsed tempting me to buy one of hundreds of thousands of holidays on offer. Why was the company allowed to continue not just to provide holidays to those who had already booked but to entice new customers at a time of such instability?

Secondly, it appears to have been revealed that credit card firms withheld from the airline an estimated £30 million from ticket sales because they feared that it would go under. Is the Minister satisfied that this practice was legal and that it did not contribute to tipping Monarch over the edge? Do the Government intend to investigate this situation and to ensure that in future cases of a similar nature there is no knock-on effect from action of this sort by credit card companies?

Thirdly, what percentage of customers are not covered by the ATOL scheme? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give us a precise figure at this stage but some indication would be helpful. In what respect will the ATOL Bill, which is before this House at the moment and will be discussed in Grand Committee on Wednesday, improve the situation in the future? Will he undertake to re-examine that Bill in the light of these events to see whether more could or should be done to protect customers buying flights as part of a holiday in the new online arrangements that the vast majority of us now participate in?

Finally, how much will the repatriation cost? How far do the Government believe that they will be able to recover that cost and what steps will they take to do so?

This collapse of a company nearly 50 years old and the sheer number of customers involved emphasises how much we travel abroad these days and how important it is that the Government grapple urgently with the challenges that the transport industry faces in relation to many aspects of Brexit.

HS2 Update

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in the House of Commons. We support HS2 and thus welcome this further announcement of phase 2B on more but not yet all of the route. We welcome the intention that HS2 outside London will have connections to the existing network. We do not welcome the fact that the Government appear determined to see HS2 run in the private rather than the public sector, bearing in mind the amount of taxpayers’ money that will be invested, the success of the public sector in running the east coast main line twice following the withdrawal of two different private sector operators, and the continuing success of the public sector in running the London Underground, with its heavy traffic flows.

We will need to look at the details of the proposed route just announced and the extent to which legitimate concerns have or have not been addressed, as well as the compensation and mitigation proposals, but perhaps the Minister can say now how the compensation compares with that for those affected by a new runway at Heathrow. For how long will the further consultation mentioned in the Statement last, and by when do the Government expect to announce their decisions in the light of that consultation? The Government have not yet given a timescale on that. Likewise, when next year do the Government expect to announce the rest of the route of HS2? The National Audit Office stated earlier this year that HS2 had an “unrealistic timetable” and faced major cost pressures. What is now the timetable for the completion of HS2 and what is the latest accurate projected total cost figure, bearing in mind what has happened time-wise and cost-wise to what is presumably the much simpler Great Western electrification?

The Statement says that HS2 links up the cities of the north of England and the east and west Midlands. When do the Government intend to make firm announcements about improved rail links between the cities of the north? The Statement says in the context of a rail network for Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Hull and Newcastle that the Government will, where necessary,

“include passive provision for these services in the Phase 2b hybrid Bill, subject to agreement of funding and the supporting business case”.

In this context what exactly does passive provision mean—as opposed, presumably, to non-passive provision?

The Statement also says that:

“HS2 will free up space on our existing railways for new commuter, regional and freight services”,

and,

“will provide new options for services to towns which currently do not have a direct connection to London”.

What new commuter, regional and freight services do the Government have in mind, and what towns do the Government consider would have the option of a direct connection to London—or is that statement one simply of hope and expectation rather than fact?

The Statement refers to tomorrow’s HS2, east and west coast main lines being able to have,

“48 trains per hour to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds”,

and that this would be up from 29 today. Perhaps the Minister could give me a breakdown of those two figures. On the face of it, they do not appear to include existing services from Marylebone to Birmingham; neither is it clear whether the existing services are only those to and from London or include those running between Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

The Statement also refers to phase 1, from Birmingham to London, and the award of some contracts. What percentage of those contracts, in number and value, are going to British firms? What percentage of any materials used will be imported from elsewhere and what percentage will come from within the United Kingdom? Reference has also been made to Euston station. To what extent has agreement been reached with the London Borough of Camden over the development of HS2 at Euston and its impact on the surrounding area?

Finally, I wish to raise two other points about phase 1 and need to declare an interest, as I have a home within a mile or so of the route of HS2 in the London Borough of Hillingdon. I make these two points in the context of what is stated on page 6 of the Statement:

“We have a general obligation to continue to seek further reductions to adverse impacts during the design, construction and operation of the scheme”.

Just prior to the London mayoral election the Government announced, following a meeting with the Secretary of State at which the Conservative candidate in that election was present, that they would ensure another look was taken at the case for extending the tunnelling of the route in the West Ruislip area. Can the Government tell us what the outcome of that further look is and the reason for any decision, now that the mayoral election is safely out of the way? Can the Government also say what has happened in respect of the relocation of the Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre, used by significant numbers of young people in particular? I have visited the site on two occasions in the company of two different Ministers—sympathetic noises were made, particularly on the second occasion. Has a suitable alternative site been found for the outdoor activities centre, since HS2 still appears to be going right across the existing site on a viaduct?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I started today in Marseille and travelled here by TGV, which is fast, efficient, very comfortable and has low emissions. I mention this not because I think that your Lordships will be interested in my holiday photos but because France is decades ahead of us in the provision of a network of fast, efficient rail services. On these Benches, we are firm supporters of HS2 and we welcome this announcement and the details provided today, as far as they go. We also welcome the jobs whose potential creation has been outlined but we have concerns, which I wish to raise here.

First, HS1 was opened in 2007 and it will be at least 20 years between its opening and that of the first phase of HS2. I know that the Minister has given us an indication of the timescale for the second phase of HS2 but I wish to push him on whether there is any scope for faster completion, because the great cities of the midlands and the north need this connectivity very much faster than what is outlined. While the Government make the very valid point in their Statement that HS2 will take pressure off existing lines, it is worth pointing out at this stage that those lines are already groaning under the pressure of the number of passengers and the frequency of services that have to be provided. Therefore, when one extrapolates into the future, one finds it very difficult to believe that the system will not have cracked apart by the time HS2 phase 2 is opened. My main concern is that HS2 phase 2 will drain resources, which are so badly needed, from the rest of the network. Investment is urgently required now. Last week, the Government announced that four electrification projects were being put on permanent hold. There is a shadow over some aspects of the Great Western electrification. The east coast main line is desperately in need of investment. The ORR’s statistics show how badly that line is suffering. Previous promises of investment on that line have been put on hold. I urge the Government to give us more detail about their plans for investment in existing services to reassure us that HS2 is not just a highly polished priority project being operated at the expense of the rest of the rail network. Stimulating investment in the Midlands and the north depends on very much more than HS2. It has to link into an efficient, integrated public transport service.

Finally, the mitigation measures and the detail on them are very welcome, but I ask for a more open and straightforward approach from HS2 Ltd in future. Residents and local councils report that they have often found it less than easy to deal with. I shall not repeat many of the detailed questions put to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, but I emphasise that I am concerned to have more detailed information, particularly on what “provision” means and on the number of services that currently run and the future expansion of those services.

Airport Capacity

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

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.

Airport Capacity

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place this afternoon by the Secretary of State. It is typical of this Government that they should make the announcement that the commitment the Prime Minister gave to make a decision this month no longer stood, at a time when Parliament could not be told and was not in a position to hold the Government to account for nearly four days. I do not intend to spend any time on the entirely credible point that this Government’s decision to delay on a matter of national interest—not simply that of London and the south-east—is rooted in their own party political considerations, even though the Minister must know that has been an important factor.

I have one or two points to make, and then I have a number of questions. As recently as 23 November, in response to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, the Government repeated the Prime Minister’s assurance that a decision on London’s airports would be made before Christmas. When another noble Lord asked for confirmation that that decision would be final, not simply interim, he was told by the Minister that the Government’s position had been made clear and that he was clutching at straws. As we now find out, just three weeks later, he was in reality clutching at incredibly strong straws.

One area where this Government and their Prime Minister are extremely decisive is when it comes to avoiding decisions. Airport capacity in the south-east is simply yet another such case. Bearing in mind that the Government recently repeated the Prime Minister’s assurance that a decision would be made before Christmas, what issue has arisen or what information has come to light between 23 November and last Thursday evening, 10 December, that is of such significance as to require a further delay in making a decision, and yet was not known about before 23 November and could not, and did not, come to light during the lengthy consideration by the Davies commission or in the six months since the commission published its findings and recommendations? That is six months during which the Government have been considering the findings and recommendations of the Davies commission report, including on environmental considerations and air quality, for which the commission said there should be statutory guarantees. The items to be looked at, as set out in the Statement, are not new. They should have been being looked at during the past six months, and should have been known about when the Government gave a commitment to make a decision this month.

What specific further investigations or studies do the Government now intend to undertake to enable them to come to a decision, who will undertake those and within what timescale? Will the Government give an assurance that the results of those further studies and investigations will be made public well before a final decision is made? Will the Davies commission be asked to consider them, and say whether they would have led it to reach different findings or recommendations, with the views of the commission again being made public well before a decision is made by the Government?

We agree that there is a clear and immediate need for additional runway capacity in the south-east of England and a need to ensure that environmental and community concerns are balanced against the economic and operational case for expansion. The Government recently announced the setting up of the National Infrastructure Commission, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to provide independent, authoritative advice on the merits and compatibility of major infrastructure projects, including when they need to be undertaken. Will the Minister say why the Government believe that the lengthy indecision over future airport capacity and additional runways we have faced and continue to face would have been avoided under the new National Infrastructure Commission? What would have been different had the National Infrastructure Commission been in existence earlier? In view of the further government delay of many months in reaching a decision, will the Minister indicate whether the Government will now take the opportunity to seek the views and advice of the National Infrastructure Commission on the most appropriate long-term decision on airport expansion in the south-east?

Will the Minister confirm what, if anything, the Government are committed to in relation to increased airport capacity in the south-east? Are they committed to at least one additional runway somewhere in the south-east? Significantly, the Statement does not directly answer that question. Will the Government also say when they expect to announce a decision? The Statement does not specifically say when there will be such a decision, only when the Government expect a package of work to be concluded, which is a totally different issue.

We appear to have moved backwards in time, because the Government have indicated that the option of an additional runway at Gatwick is still in the frame, as well as that of a third runway at Heathrow, as recommended by the Davies commission. The uncertainty and blight for those living near Heathrow and Gatwick continue for an apparently potentially lengthy period, as it does for the less than impressed business community, which is worried about the impact on the economy.

Finally, we are still left to deal with the immediate problems of airport capacity in the south-east. Heathrow is effectively full, and Gatwick is operating at 85% capacity. What, if any, plans do the Government now have to ease this problem, which is already having adverse impacts? In the light of the apparent further lengthy delay in making a decision—which simply adds to the delay caused by the time it took to set up the Davies commission, and the decision that its report and recommendations should not appear until after the general election—do the Government intend to address the lack of capacity in the south-east as it stands, bearing in mind that additional capacity is clearly some considerable time away?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

The Minister has my sympathy this evening because this delay is clearly all about Zac and Boris and has nothing to do with the need to look at air quality in greater detail. However, it gives us an opportunity to push the Government on the issues mentioned in the Statement and to test them. Surface transport access to Heathrow and Gatwick airports is an essential part of solving this problem, yet there is no reference to issues relating to it in the Statement. Will the Minister say whether there will be public investment in the surface transport infrastructure that is badly needed, or only private investment by Heathrow and Gatwick airports? Heathrow seems to believe that public investment will be needed; Gatwick seems to believe that it will not. I will be grateful for the Government’s take on this issue.

Given the further delay to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, just referred and the pressure it will cause, will the Government agree to look again at the increased use of regional airports alongside the work they are doing on the Davies solutions to airport capacity? Hub airports have moved on. We are in danger of answering yesterday’s question today; indeed, in the case of Heathrow, we are in danger of answering the day before yesterday’s question today, because this saga has gone on for so long. Dubai and Schiphol are now well established as the world’s hub airports, and a new generation of planes makes certain aspects of this issue redundant, so this question could be overtaken by events.

The Liberal Democrats have always believed that there needs to be much better use of existing spare capacity, which will need better surface connection before we expand Heathrow or Gatwick in the near future. However, if there is to be another air quality report, who will do it, to whom will it report and will that report be published in full? Any additional work on air quality must have greater public confidence than the work the Davies commission was able to produce.

Aviation Security

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Thursday 5th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the Commons. We certainly wish to associate ourselves with the condolences expressed in the Statement to the families of the 224 people who have lost their lives.

The Government have said that they still cannot be certain what caused the loss of the Russian MetroJet aircraft, but that they are reaching the view that a bomb on board is a significant possibility. That view is based on a review of all the information available to the Government, some of which cannot be disclosed. However, even without knowing the evidence, I am sure that the Government’s prompt decision to advise against all but essential travel by air to or from Sharm el-Sheikh airport, with the consequence that all UK-operated flights to and from the airport have been suspended, has been made on the basis of the need to ensure the safety of British citizens.

The Statement referred to working with the airlines to put in place short-term measures, which could include different arrangements for handling luggage. It said that beyond that, the Government are working with the Egyptians and the airlines to put in place long-term sustainable measures to ensure that our flights remain safe. If the airlines and the Government have now concluded that there perhaps ought to be different arrangements for handling luggage, is it being said that the current arrangements for handling luggage and other security issues—at an airport in a country and an area of the world which, as has been known for some time, is not exactly the most secure one could find—are not as appropriate or secure as they should be?

The Statement says that the Government are working with the Egyptians to assess and, where necessary, to improve security at the airport. Are the Government able to say that they and our personnel involved have been and are receiving all the co-operation they need from the Egyptian authorities on this issue?

What about the security arrangements at other airports in Egypt? Are they being reassessed? Are the Government now also looking with the airlines concerned at the security arrangements at airports used by British citizens in all parts of the world where there are current security and stability issues? Will the Minister also say what kind of measures are being considered with the Egyptians and the airlines in the light of the reference in the Statement to putting in place,

“long-term sustainable measures to ensure our flights remain safe”?

What are those long-term sustainable measures?

The Statement says that the Government have not changed the threat level for the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh itself. How was the conclusion reached that there is no threat in the wider Sharm el-Sheikh resort, given that the Government have decided to advise against all but essential travel by air to and from the airport, and to suspend all flights to and from the UK?

The Statement says that the airline community is putting in place interim arrangements for getting British citizens home, who as I understand it total some 20,000. I take it that the reference in the Statement to the hope that flights will leave tomorrow relates to flights leaving Sharm el-Sheikh, rather than leaving to go to that airport. How long do the Government expect it will take to get back home all British citizens who wish to return as soon as possible from Sharm el-Sheikh, rather than stay until their scheduled return date? Do the Government have any target date by which they anticipate that flights from this country to Sharm el-Sheikh will resume?

Finally, will the Minister say what consular support the Government are providing to British citizens in the resort and elsewhere in Egypt? I note that the Minister said, “we also have” consular staff, rather than what is in the written Statement. Given that the Statement says “will also have” consular staff on the ground providing assistance—implying that they are not there at the moment—is consular assistance not yet in fact being provided? If it is, or is going to be, provided through moving staff from other locations in Egypt to Sharm el-Sheikh, will consular assistance still be available to British citizens in other parts of Egypt?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, we must all add our condolences to and sympathy for the families of those killed in this terrible accident. It is a salutary reminder of the perilous state of the world when terrorism strikes at a place so many British people know from their tourist experiences.

The Government have taken what we believe is correct, appropriate, swift and decisive action, because the safety of British citizens is paramount. However, looking at the precise wording of the Statement, I ask the Minister about the level of certainty of the security information. We understand that the security information cannot be made available to all of us here, and nor should it, but we are still interested in the fact that the level of certainty that this was due to a bomb on board is slightly less strong than I would have expected in the Minister’s Statement.

In looking at the long-term experience, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Clearly, for those 20,000 tourists currently waiting to come home from Sharm el-Sheikh, there is a great deal of hope that they will be able to come home very soon, but looking at the long-term issues, there is no certainty in the Minister’s Statement as to how long it will take for normal flights to resume. The Statement refers to “due course”. I am interested in what the Government believe the meaning of that phrase to be.

I, too, was surprised by the reference in the Statement to the threat level in the resort itself not being changed. That is very interesting information, and I would be pleased to hear further detail from the Minister as to why. The obvious concern of the families of tourists currently waiting in the airport and in their hotels in Sharm el-Sheikh is that, by leaving them there, they are in some danger. It is therefore important that they be reassured, if possible, that the level of threat has not changed. Will the Minister explain that in some detail?

On the general implications, as the noble Lord said, Egypt is far from the only trouble spot in the world. Many countries in that region are affected by the same forces. Will the Minister explain the routine processes applied by the Government and by airlines to ensure that security at airports across the world is up to standard? I ask this because those processes have clearly failed in this case. I would value further information on that.

Finally, will UK security specialists, on behalf of the Government or airlines, be located on Egyptian soil in the long term to deal with ongoing threats in that area?

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Randerson

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town has set out the arguments in favour of these amendments. I certainly do not intend to repeat them all. The first amendment aims to close a loophole created by the government amendments tabled in Committee in another place. It ensures that rogue operators will not be able to extort money from drivers by way of barriers rather than clamping.

My noble friend also referred to the amendment that allows for limited licensing of parking enforcement schemes by the Secretary of State to recognise residents and community groups who suffer a serious problem with unlawful and obstructive parking. She explained the reasons why this amendment is necessary and we certainly support it. It retains the clamping ban but allows local resident and community groups to apply for the provision of a parking enforcement scheme to address specific problems with unlawful parking in their area.

Then there are amendments that deal with the introduction of an independent dispute resolution scheme, funded by the industry and available to all motorists—it is important that it is available to all motorists. Cases where mistakes are made or consumers feel that they have been unfairly treated, such as being pursued for excessive charges, can be decided fairly, quickly and cheaply. Rogue ticketing is already a serious problem. It is only likely to get worse once rogue clampers are put out of business. Citizens advice bureaux are dealing with increased numbers of parking inquiries, queries and complaints. Last year, compared with the previous year, they saw an increase in people visiting their website seeking information and advice about parking issues.

The amendment establishes an independent ombudsman system that avoids costs and clogging up of the courts by challenges to parking fines brought by consumers. The issue is that it is not the members of the BPA who are most likely to operate outside the bounds of good practice. In order to protect consumers from unfair and disproportionate charges, all parking operators must be required to meet minimum standards for clear signage and proportionate charges. There must be an independent complaints process for consumers.

That is one of the purposes of these amendments. They give those parking their cars a better deal. They also give a better deal to those in certain locations who have parking on their own particular private property and will apparently be unable to seek effective redress.

I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to these amendments and indicate that, even if they are not prepared to accept them, they will take the matter away and come back to it on Third Reading with amendments of their own covering the same issue.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I do not share all the noble Baroness’s concerns but still remain concerned about some aspects of the situation. I thank the Minister for the time he gave us in discussing these problems in a meeting. The Government are showing that they are aware of the issues. Some of their proposals—that places suffering from this kind of inappropriate parking can employ a parking company—would be suitable in large situations where the parking was widespread, regular and frequent. However, often these problems take place in, for example, the car parks of churches or community centres, or in residential car parks associated with blocks of flats. The problem is not on a large enough scale for an organisation which exists for a totally separate purpose from parking. It does not suit that kind of organisation to engage a parking company to sort out its problems. The Government have to look at a different resolution to the problem. There are still some questions to be answered.

In my speech in Committee, I asked the Minister what the situation was in Scotland, where there is no clamping. I am strongly in favour of the purpose behind this Bill in that respect: clamping should not be allowed to continue. Scotland has not had clamping for many years. Are there problems there associated with rogue ticketing? There do not appear to be massive problems with that but there appears to be an increase in the number of complaints about ticketing brought to consumer organisations in recent years. The Government need to address the issue of how they will deal with any problems which may emerge as a result of this change in legislation which will undoubtedly go ahead.

What are the Government proposing to do in relation to the forthcoming EU directive on ADR—the alternative dispute resolution procedure? I gather that that will be required in the near future for all traders providing goods and services. That would include parking companies. We need reassurance about the independent appeals process. There is still this gap in the situation where we can expect supermarkets and so on to find a satisfactory alternative to clamping. It is not reasonable to expect a small community-based organisation to employ a parking company and issue tickets. That is not their purpose. It adds bureaucracy and concerns for them.