Railways: Dawlish

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to the issues we have had on that track: when there are high waves and sea spray close to the track the Voyager trains cannot run, as they have brake resistors on top. CrossCountry is working to assess whether there might be engineering solutions that would enable the Voyager class to operate through Dawlish in those challenging conditions. We are also looking into providing further additional rolling stock, but the Government and franchise operators are investing heavily in new, improved trains.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the economies of west Devon, Plymouth and Cornwall rely very much on this line. Last autumn a six-foot hole appeared under the track in the Dawlish area, so this is far from solved. Yet, despite Devon and Cornwall—regrettably—being stuffed with Tory MPs there seems to be no real action at all. Can the Minister give us a date when the fundamental structure, whether it is the line that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, refers to or the sea wall, will be completed? When will something be done?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, this train line has been a long-standing problem ever since it was opened in 1846—that year trains failed to run along it. We are working closely on that and although I am not able to give the noble Lord a date, we are making significant progress. Network Rail has submitted a plan that we are looking at carefully and we hope to make an announcement on it very shortly.

Railways: Reliability

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Teverson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve rail service reliability in 2019.

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

My Lords, the Government will continue the current record level of funding in our railways, with around £48 billion to be spent on the network from now until 2024. This will support more maintenance and a huge uplift in renewals to increase reliability and punctuality for passengers. We are delivering the biggest rail modernisation programme for more than a century. The department, working alongside Network Rail and other industry partners, is committed to investing in the railways so that we can have a modern, reliable and punctual railway system, fit for the future.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

Hmm. I accept absolutely that we have put billions into the rail network and rail services, and yet last year we had the worst service over the year for 13 years and the worst summer for 20 years. Will the Minister answer this very simple question: who is responsible for those improvements and who is in charge?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that we had a difficult year in rail last year. Things are improving: punctuality has improved since this time last year; cancellations and significant lateness have improved as well. Previous investment focused on capacity improvements, which was much needed, given the doubling of the number of passengers. For the next control period, however, the main purpose of our investment is to improve reliability, and that involves repairing and replacing worn-out parts of the network to increase reliability. The Department for Transport is working very closely with Network Rail and train operating companies to deliver that.

Merchant Shipping (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Carbon Dioxide Emissions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord in the same vein by asking a simple question. I remind the Committee of my historic interest as the Conservative spokesman in the European Parliament on transport issues. Can my noble friend the Minister explain the current enforcement mechanism if either a UK-registered ship or an EU-registered ship breaches the carbon dioxide emissions limit? How does she imagine that that enforcement mechanism will change in the future? Presumably the whole point of having carbon dioxide emissions limits is to ensure that, along with every other form of transport, maritime shipping abides by air quality standards. Will we be able to enforce this unilaterally going forward?

I turn to something that is very topical. Is there currently any jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice over a breach of these emissions standards?

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I should declare that I am a board member of the Marine Management Organisation. I do not think that it conflicts with what we are considering here, but I mention it for the avoidance of doubt. I would like to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, by saying that in her role as leading the group in the European Parliament when the Conservatives were part of the EPP, which is exactly where they should still be, she was a fantastic advocate for her position. I was in a different group that sometimes became involved in things like trans-European networks, and I noted that she was very successful in what she tried to do. She presented a difficult opposition.

I want to come back to a few points about carbon budgets, which is what this comes down to. In her remarks the Minister alternated between talking about carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. There is a very important difference between those two phrases. I would be interested in understanding whether these regulations are in fact concerned with greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide emissions. I know that they refer to carbon dioxide, but most of the monitoring that is done is for greenhouse gases. Although emissions of methane are lower, it is a much more potent greenhouse gas. The difference is important and I presume that it is particularly relevant to the shipping industry, given its emissions.

I congratulate the Minister on reminding us that international shipping is the one area where we still have not solved this issue internationally. In aviation we have this rather dodgy—if I am honest—offset system. We will see how it works, but I suspect that the Amazon rainforest will not grow at the rate that aircraft emissions will. Given that sympathy, I am interested to understand whether, given the fact that we have international paralysis, and with the Government perhaps frustrated by the fact that that sector is not represented within European or British carbon budgets, the UK, as the Climate Change Committee has often advocated, will take on its leadership role in this area again and start to reconsider whether the sector should be. I am not expecting a policy decision today in the Moses Room, but I will be interested to know if the Government will start to look at that issue.

When it comes to individual matters of these particular regulations, I shall quote from the Explanatory Memorandum as the legislation refers to European regulations all the way through and it is very difficult to read, as I am sure the Minister understands:

“The amendments … remove what will become redundant requirements on the UK to make certain reports to the Commission”.


I wanted to clarify whether those requirements, whatever they are, or those reports will actually now be made within the UK anyway.

I am in particularly interested in documents of compliance. I do not know much about this topic although I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is clued up on them. I presume that they will be issued by the Marine and Coastguard Agency. I am interested to understand whether these are existing EU systems. If they are, are we having to replace the IT systems? Are they ready? How many of these things do we issue at the moment and how many are we going to have to issue after March 2019, or after the transition period if we manage to come to an agreement? As we all know, IT systems and the increase in documentation and red tape are one of the biggest challenges in making Brexit work.

I have to ask about this ability to expel ships from a port, which we are getting rid of because we already have the ability to get rid of ships for safety and environmental reasons. I am interested to understand, in terms of EU legislation, what other scenarios the Government were thinking of in that legislation other than safety and the environment, in order to understand what rights we are forgoing.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations have already been through the Commons, as obviously the Minister knows better than I do. We indicated our support for them when they were considered there last week, and I hope she will not be too surprised when I say that that is still our position today. In the Commons, in response to points that we raised about the impact of these regulations on compliance with the IMO strategy and targets for carbon reductions from shipping by 2050, the Government said they would provide assurances in writing. I am afraid I genuinely do not know yet whether those assurances—I see the Minister is waving the letter, so if one is not already on its way to me, I would be extremely grateful to receive a copy.

I turn to Part 2 of the annex to the Explanatory Memorandum, headed:

“Statements required when using enabling powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) 2018 Act”,


which refers to the undertaking that has been given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that:

“In my view the draft Merchant Shipping (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Ships) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 does no more than is appropriate”.


The Explanatory Memorandum to the previous SI that we were considering went on to say that the changes,

“do no more than is strictly necessary”.

This one does not contain those words. It says:

“This is the case because the amendments being made do no more than ensure the continuing effectiveness of the existing regulatory regime”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

Yes, absolutely. They are issued by the independent verifiers and then checked by the MCA. On compliance and enforcement, the existing regulations bring in fines if people fail to comply. That also allows for the detention of non-compliant ships that come into UK ports. Inspectors from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will ensure that ships have the correct documentation and will do the enforcement on UK-flagged ships. Other ships using UK ports will also be liable for inspection as part of the port state control regime. Non-compliant ships can be detained and their owners prosecuted via the courts and fined. The enforcement will stay the same, it will just be done under the UK regulation rather than the EU regulation.

I hope I have answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Rather than it being about greenhouse gas emissions or carbon, it is about the fuel consumption and reducing that over time.

[Lord Teverson]

I am trying to understand whether this is about just carbon dioxide monitoring or greenhouse gas monitoring because if it is just carbon, it is not compatible with UK carbon budgets, which include national shipping. There is a big difference. It seems a fairly straightforward question to me—yes or no? The Minister is welcome to write to say yes or no.

[Baroness Sugg]

I probably will have to write to the noble Lord with details on that. The current monitoring system is about fuel consumption by vessels. When collated, that information will help inform future policy on the reduction of emissions, which will obviously cover greenhouses gases and carbon. I will take up the noble Lord’s offer of writing to him in detail on that.

The noble Lord also asked about the documents of compliance. We want to ensure that the MRV system works as smoothly as possible after we leave the EU so we have taken the decision to recognise all EU MRV certificates issued by other member states as being equivalent to our own. We have the capacity to issue our own but we have already stated that we will recognise those from member states and we hope, of course, that the EU will mutually recognise ours.

We will also ensure that there is no duplication of reporting for ships travelling between the UK and EU states. If a ship notifies us that it has submitted all its verified voyage data to the EU we will not require it to provide us with a duplicate report. We are trying to minimise the burden on businesses as we leave the EU.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the Minister and I will not intervene again. I welcome the fact that we will recognise EU documentation. That is an excellent decision that will reduce bureaucracy. Do we need to invent a new IT system ourselves and have we managed to do that? I suppose that that is the key point here.

[Baroness Sugg]

No. We already have the ability to issue these certificates so a new system is not needed.

Reference was made by the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Rosser, to expulsion orders. It is not the Government’s policy to ban or exile ships from a port unless there is an immediate risk to safety, as both noble Lords said. Neither of those conditions would apply to the requirements under this regime. It is a reciprocal requirement that will no longer be relevant when we are not a member state. There will be a practical problem in that when we exit the EU, there is no requirement under the European regulations to notify non-EEA states that a vessel has been banned from an EU port. There is actually no mechanism if we leave without a deal either for us to tell the EU or vice versa. That is why it has not been replicated. However, there is no reason why we cannot share data in the future. As we made clear in the White Paper, it is in our interests and those of the EU that we should continue to co-operate through the EMSA. However, that will be subject to negotiations.

The question of reporting was raised in the other place and I will certainly forward the letter from my honourable friend Nusrat Ghani on this to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others. On the assessments of the impact of the maritime sector on carbon dioxide, we have not retained the paragraph on that in the draft regulations because that obligation applies specifically to the European Commission rather than to member states or to the UK in particular. It is necessary for the effective functioning of the MRV system, so the Secretary of State has taken over responsibility for what was previously held by the Commission. There will be an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish the results of the CO₂ data which we will receive annually from ships in much the same way as the Commission will be doing with the other 27 member states. We will just be taking on the responsibility to publish the data, which obviously will be made available to all those who are interested in it.

Under our domestic legislation, the Secretary of State would not be required to conduct a similar biennial review of the impact on the global climate. The fact that it is not in retained EU legislation of course does not preclude us from undertaking such a review and we are keen to maintain our position of leading the way in this area. I have already spoken about our leading role in the agreement with the IMO in April.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the IMO system which will take effect on international voyages from 1 January 2019. The systems are very similar in that they both apply to vessels of 5,000 gross tonnes and over, but there are a few differences. The European regime which we are carrying over applies only to voyages undertaken to carry passengers and cargo for commercial purposes rather than other maritime activities such as dredging. It requires more information such as on the cargo being carried by the vessel and more transparency in terms of disclosing data. It also includes a more robust verification process. Ideally, we want to see the IMO and EU systems become aligned while maintaining the environmental integrity of the overall scheme. That is something that we will continue to work on with our international partners in order to achieve it going forward. However, as I said in my opening remarks, at the moment we are allowing the systems on UK-flagged vessels to collect the data so that they are able to report to both systems easily enough.

I hope that I have covered the points which were raised, but if I have not gone into them all in detail, I will certainly write to noble Lords. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the objective of the regulations, which is to maintain an effective regime to monitor emissions from ships, is the right thing to do.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I had the great privilege and enjoyment of working in the road freight industry for the first 17 years of my career. It was rather different from my parliamentary career but it was just as competitive—in fact, it was more competitive. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, this is probably the most competitive sector in the economy, with a large number of SME companies operating in it. Any costs, charges, delays or extra bureaucracy—red tape as we normally call it—will have a very negative impact on the sector. This is an unintended consequence of the Brexit negotiations, particularly the red lines on the customs union and single market that the Government have chosen. I shall come back to that theme later. This is an unnecessary and—in the sense that it was not in the Queen’s Speech—unexpected Bill, which promises the industry quite a substantial amount of extra red tape.

Looking at the size of the issue, there are some 4 million cross-border truck movements in and out of the United Kingdom per annum. This is an addition to the customs issue, which the Minister herself mentioned. There will be extra costs there, too: an average of £500 a day for the delay of a truck going across a border. The number of customs declarations will have to go up from 55 million to something like a quarter of a billion. In Dover, there are 10,000 freight movements a day, with no holding space for delay. There are issues around rules of origin and phytosanitary conditions. Hauliers and road transport operators will have to deal with all those issues post Brexit, based on the red lines the Government have put down. So this is an important Bill, but it is part of a larger problem and challenge to the industry to adjust over a relatively short period to the new, post-Brexit situation. This will be challenging financially, time-wise, bureaucratically —in every way—to an industry that is always under pressure.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has given an excellent summary of the majority of the issues, so I will ask the Minister a number of questions. I, too, would like to understand the cost to hauliers of these permits. In her introductory remarks, the Minister said that it would be comparable to the cost of permits in countries that we deal with elsewhere in the world. Presumably we have a fairly good idea of what those are; the analysis will be there. I would be interested to hear about that. Are we certain, as negotiations stand, that we can keep the community licences we have at the moment during the transition period? Having seen the correspondence on the offer from Brussels on the transition deal and the Government’s response, I do not see this as an issue. I hope we will have a breathing space of two years, 18 months or whatever it is. It is important for the industry to understand how much of a breathing space it might have, provided we do not come to no deal in the meantime.

On trailer registration, there is an absolutely huge number of trailers. I am slightly reassured by the Minister that it will relate only to trailers used on international movements. However, hauliers may often not be aware which trailers they might or might not want to use and feel they have to register their whole fleets. Does the Minister have an estimate of the number of trailers and semi-trailers in the United Kingdom that will have to be registered?

What is happening about foreign vehicles coming into this country? This is the other side of the argument. What are we expecting as a permit system from them? Are we going to give them free access? Are we going to allow them to undertake cabotage in the UK, as we will almost certainly be stopped from doing in other European Union countries? Will we charge them road fund licence fees for operating on British roads? As I understand it, foreign or cross-border traffic by road transport is heavily dominated by EU 27 rather than British vehicles. Are we to have issues around paying for our roads and infrastructure?

Does the Bill require new IT systems in the Department for Transport and, if so, have they started to be developed? Are they complex? Are they being put out to consultants? I hope not. Can we be certain that this will happen? As we all know, IT systems are one area of development where we need urgent and rather forced change when things go wrong and we do not meet deadlines. I am unclear whether these regulations apply to or will be needed by other EU countries for own-account operations, as well as hire and reward. Most of the commentary in this area is around hire and reward, but what about the own-account organisations?

I am very pessimistic about this. If the Government stick to their red line of being outside not just the customs union but the single market, I can guarantee that this legislation and scheme will be necessary. There is not a chance that, outside the single market, we will be able to have a similar system to community licensing. That is described by Mr Barnier as cherry picking. A number of colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I met him last week, and he once again made the point that Britain would not be able to cherry pick if it is not in the single market. This is one of those areas, so I very much regret its bureaucracy and cost, and that this unnecessary act will indeed be necessary if we have a Brexit that is outside the single market.

Transport: Remote Island Communities in England

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on getting this debate and particularly on allowing all of us a quarter of an hour to speak—a restriction which I hope I will get nowhere near.

Having said that, I have some criticism in that, although I live in Cornwall and often visit west Cornwall and Scilly, I was born in Essex and worked in east London. Of course the Isle of Dogs, Canvey Island and, across the water from us, the Isle of Sheppey and the Isle of Thanet, are also key islands in the realm of England, but I think probably on the Isle of Dogs, with Canary Wharf, the problem is not one of lack of public transport.

Last autumn I had the privilege to visit Scilly and to chair a conference on the transport needs there. I was asked over as I have a background in the transport industry and represented Scilly as an MEP some years ago. I was struck—not just from my own experience over many years of travelling to Scilly, but by that well-attended conference on islands with a population of some 2,000, not all of whom were there, by many means, but a significant number of whom were, including all the decision-makers—by how much the transport facilities and access to Scilly, and between it and west Cornwall, needed to be improved, and by their unsatisfactory nature.

During my period as an MEP in the late 1990s, the same arguments were there. The issues around the replacement of the “Scillonian III” and improving the robust nature of the sea route were most important. At that time, as well, we had a helicopter route, and the airframes of those vehicles were ageing very substantially. As we found out, the property value of the heliport at Penzance was going up and up and tempting redevelopment.

Since that time, the tourist economy of Scilly has been far more challenged. Scilly has benefited for many years from a stable type of visitor who goes back many times but is of a certain age. That type of tourism is more difficult and more challenging. There are fewer people who have a tradition of going there. At one time the islands’ hoteliers were known for enjoying a season on Scilly and then the winter in the Bahamas. Those days, I regret on their behalf, are long gone. There really is an issue now about transport to these important islands some 20 or 30 miles off the west coast of the mainland.

As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, that area of monopoly is a real challenge. It was a great disappointment to me—having supported development and planning permission for a new heliport very near to the old one, to which there were very few local objections—that there was a judicial review to hold up the process. That meant that the aspiration of people not just in Scilly but in west Cornwall to take advantage of a quite risky—in the best sense—entrepreneurial attempt to greatly improve transport connections has been put back and potentially challenged. I will not go into the motives or reasons for the judicial review but I think that it was very regrettable and that an alternative method of travel is being threatened or prejudiced. These investments, if prolonged for too long, risk not happening. This whole issue of improving these connections, bringing competition, is key.

I want to make one other point which reinforces the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: because connections to remote islands are not a great challenge in England and Cornwall, we do not really focus on them at all—unlike in Scotland, where huge care is taken to make sure that island communities are not prejudiced in their access to services and travel to the mainland.

In terms of the Isles of Scilly, we have to change that view in respect of England and Cornwall. That community, which is more under threat than it has been in the past, now needs to be given due attention in terms of accepting that principle, which I think is right for all citizens across the United Kingdom, which is that you should not be discriminated against because you live offshore. For that reason, I would like to see government initiatives to readdress that balance between Scotland and England and Cornwall, and I would very much like to see the monopoly in transport to the Isles of Scilly challenged, with competition coming in and encouragement of greater choice not only for the citizens of Scilly but for those many adventurers who wish to cross the Atlantic to our remote islands off our west coast. Those islands are great to visit and great to live on for those who have the privilege to be there but who need to come back to the mainland for their education, for their medical needs and for all the other services that we take for granted.

Drones

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises an important point about safety around airports. We are looking much more extensively at the issues of geo-fencing around critical sites such as airports. Nevertheless, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, there were 70 reported incidents in 2016 and that was 70 too many. It is important that, as technology advances, we look at more rapid and rigid enforcement of geo-fencing.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, there were indeed 70 incidents, 25 of which were at Heathrow. The Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill has just been introduced in the House of Commons. This seems the perfect place to add legislation and rules in this area. At the moment the Bill includes lasers, but it does not include drones. Will the Minister undertake that, when the Bill comes to this House, the Government will put forward suitable amendments to include drones?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Of course we will have a discussion about the important issue of lasers. The noble Lord is quite right to point out that that is included in the Bill that he mentioned. I am not going to prejudge what conclusions are reached in the other place—or indeed in this place—regarding what legislative vehicle will be used for the purposes of drones. It is important that we look at the full review of the consultation taking place in the middle of next month and then consider its results in the summer of this year.

Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2015

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this order is makes four amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in consequence of the introduction of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which inserted a new Section 5A into the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Section 5A creates new drug-driving offences of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a specified drug in the body above specified limits. The Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014 were made on 24 October 2014. They specified the drugs and their limits, and will come into force in England and Wales on 2 March 2015. Although the new Section 5A applies to Scotland as well, it is for the Scottish Government to make regulations to specify the drugs and their limits. I understand that the Scottish Government are in the process of considering responses to a consultation and hope to publish an analysis report shortly. The views offered in the consultation will inform their decision on the drugs and their limits for the new drug-driving offence in Scotland. This order therefore applies to Great Britain where the amendments extend the penalties already available in relation to similar driving offences connected with drink-driving and drug-driving to the new drug-driving offences. It also provides for the endorsement of an offender’s driving licence counterpart and the driver’s record in relation to the new offences.

As noble Lords are aware, the review of drink and drug-driving law by Sir Peter North concluded that there is,

“a significant drug driving problem”,

and recommended the new offence. Drivers impaired by drugs kill large numbers of people, and there could be as many as 200 drug-driving-related deaths a year in Great Britain. Statistics show that a drug-driver has 1/50th of the chance of being prosecuted compared to a drink-driver. European evidence from the driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and medicines project—DRUID—suggests that drug-driving is about half as prevalent as drink-driving. We estimate it to be around a third as prevalent in Great Britain, so enforcement related to drugs is disproportionately low. Ensuring we have the full range of penalties and the ability to record offenders fully to support the new offence will thus enable more effective law enforcement and act as a deterrent to those who recklessly risk killing and injuring on the road as a result of taking drugs and driving.

I turn to the detail of the order we are proposing. Section 45 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides for the period during which an endorsement remains effective on the counterpart of a driving licence following a conviction where endorsement of the offence has been ordered. This order amends the Act so an endorsement ordered upon a person’s conviction for the new offence remains effective until 11 years have elapsed since the conviction, in line with other drink-driving and drug-driving offences, rather than just four years as it currently stands.

When the relevant part of the Road Safety Act 2006 is brought into force, Section 45, which relates to the endorsement of counterparts, will be repealed and Section 45A, which relates to the endorsement of driving records, will be in force. The amendments made by the Road Safety Act 2006 are part of the legislative changes which abolish the paper driving licence counterpart so that all endorsements will need to be recorded electronically on a person’s driving record only. This order has therefore been drafted so that when these Road Safety Act changes commence, the amendments made by this order to Section 45A will enable the endorsement of a person’s driving record for the Section 5A offences of driving or attempting to drive with a specified drug in the body above specified limits to remain effective until 11 years have elapsed since the conviction.

The order also amends the Road Traffic Offenders Act to provide for the penalties applicable to the offences of failing to provide a specimen for analysis under Section 7 and failing to permit a specimen to be subjected to a laboratory test under Section 7A without reasonable excuse in the course of an investigation into whether a person has committed an offence under Section 5A.

Noble Lords may be wondering why the Government have tabled this order so close to the commencement of the new Section 5A offences on 2 March. It was originally hoped that the abolition of the paper driving licence counterpart would have been completed by the end of October 2014. Our intention was to wait for that legislation to be made and make the amendment to Section 45A—“Effect of endorsement of driving records”—which would come into force instead of amending a revoked Section 45. However, industry asked for more time to get ready for the abolition of the counterpart. To accommodate the needs of industry, and so that Parliament does not have to revisit this piece of legislation in the future, this order has been drafted to refer to Section 45 but also to Section 45A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, to cover the situation where Section 45 is revoked and Section 45A is commenced.

The Government believe that it is important that those drivers who continue to commit drug-driving offences and put lives at risk have their counterparts or driving records endorsed for a considerable period of time and so are able to feel the full force of the law when prosecuted. With the power of social media, it is also important that potential drug-driving offenders are not incentivised to refuse to provide a specimen or to refuse to allow that specimen to be analysed, in order to get a lesser penalty. I urge Members to agree that we must send a strong message that this House, Parliament and wider society will not tolerate those who persist in drug-driving and the threat they pose to other road users. I therefore recommend that the Committee approves this order. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I have come very recently to this debate, but I was interested to come along and listen to it. I am interested in two areas, which are probably old territory—I hope that the Minister will forgive me. This is an important bit of legislation; drug-driving is equally as dangerous and as much of a hazard to fellow citizens as drink-driving. However, I am still unclear how the enforcement of this testing is to be done in a practical way. We always think of drug-driving as being about illegal drugs, but presumably some legal highs or even medicinal pharmaceuticals, particularly tranquilisers, can be equally dangerous. Is that covered in this legislation? I would be interested to hear and understand that context.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and content of this order. As she said, and as the Explanatory Memorandum sets out, the order amends the 1988 Act in consequence of the introduction to the Act, through the Crime and Courts Act 2013, of new drug-related road traffic offences, which make it a criminal offence to drive, attempt to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle with a concentration of a specified controlled drug above a laid-down limit. The amendments in the order extend the penalties connected with drink and drugs, including failure to provide a specimen, to the new drug-related road traffic offences and provide for the endorsement of an offender’s counterpart and driving record in relation to the new offences. As the Minister said, the new offence comes into force shortly—at the beginning of next week—in England and Wales. Regulations determined by Parliament last October, I think, specified the controlled drugs and their limits.

I appreciate that the key debate on this issue has already taken place and the decisions have been made, but can the Minister give an up-to-date indication of the number of proceedings per year expected to be brought under the new offence of driving having taken a relevant controlled drug above the specified limit and whether the ability to test for and prove that drugs above the specified limit have been taken is sufficiently robust to expect a proportion of guilty findings similar to that applicable to drink-driving proceedings, namely 96%? Perhaps she could also say something about whether the necessary equipment to undertake these tests on those who it is felt may have been driving with a concentration of a specified controlled drug above a specified limit is now available, so that we are ready to go as far the bringing into force of these new offences is concerned. What is the cost of that equipment? How many police forces already have it? Who has to pay for it? Does it have to be used back at the police station or do we have equipment that can be used at the road side? It would be helpful if the Minister was able to comment on those points.

As I understand the penalties and levels, a zero-tolerance approach is being adopted towards anyone who is found to have a concentration of a specified controlled drug unless they are able to show that it resulted from having taken a drug for medical reasons.

The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“No formal consultation for these amendments has been undertaken as these are consequential amendments upon the creation of new drug driving offences”.

Has consultation taken place previously on what the penalties should be and whether they should be on a par with, lower than or higher than those related to drink-driving, or has it just been assumed that they should be on a similar level? Was a view taken on whether driving having taken drugs is likely to have a lesser or greater impact on driving ability than having consumed alcohol? One assumes, in the light of the comment in the Explanatory Memorandum that the penalties are on a par with those for similar driving offences connected with drink and drugs, that the impact is deemed to be the same. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that point because, if the impact is deemed likely to be greater, one would have thought that that would have been reflected in the penalty; if it was deemed likely to be lower, likewise it might have been thought that that would have been reflected in the penalty the other way.

Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 12 that a supplier has been selected to evaluate the effect of the new drug-driving offences. Could the Minister say who that supplier is?

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, my comments on these three amendments reflect my comments on the first group. I welcome them. Again, we spent a lot of time debating them, and it is really good that the Commons listened to the very strong pressure from the various cycling organisations and persuaded the Government that the new clause under Amendment 6 should go in. It covers everything that one could have asked for. It follows on, as the Minister said, from the delivery plan. A duty to deliver a strategy was needed, and what is in these amendments is very good. Subsection (9) even says what happens if the Secretary of State does not produce a strategy, which is very welcome. It would be nice if the Minister could give an indication as to when the first one might appear. Is it this year, next year or sometime never? I know it is always difficult for Ministers to commit themselves.

One thing occurred to me on reading this amendment. I read it as applying to all roads, not just trunk roads, but maybe the Minister will confirm that. I know that there are not many cyclists on trunk roads, as most find it much too dangerous, but trunk roads are useful highways, connecting towns, villages and cities that are a little further apart with a bit more capacity and higher speed. In the Netherlands, they are making high-speed cycle lanes where people are expected to go a bit faster.

However, it is a really good start. I congratulate the Government on listening to all the pressure that has come from the cycling organisations. I look forward to participating and taking this forward.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I, too, very much welcome these amendments. As we discussed in Committee and on Report, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, we felt that this was an important bit that was missing from transport strategy. The Infrastructure Bill is an excellent opportunity to put that right. The early clauses sounded very woolly to me, but as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, new subsection (9) makes it rather clear that this is expected to happen rather than being something that is optional. That is a major step forward. I assume and hope that this will go forward and that we will approve it as soon as possible.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I join the two noble Lords who have just spoken in very much welcoming these amendments. Throughout the passage of this Bill there has been very consistent pressure from the cycling organisations. They have established their case against a background, which we are all too aware of, where cycling is still too dangerous a pursuit in certain parts of the country, particularly in our great cities.

I always think of Lord Dormand, who was in this House for a number of years. When he was in the Commons, he used to cycle from Westminster to the National Executive Committee meetings at Walworth Road. That meant a journey around Parliament Square, the roundabout at the far end of Westminster Bridge, and Elephant and Castle. I thought that it was the most dangerous journey in the world as a cyclist, which is why, every week he threatened to do the journey, I sought to dissuade him. He always made the journey and always lived to tell the tale.

However, subsequently there has been an increasing number of cycling accidents, if not on trunk roads, often on large roundabouts, which are difficult to negotiate with a very slow vehicle such as a bicycle as you go past a number of exits from which other vehicles will make definitive and often rapid moves. We have a lot to do to make cycling safer, but I am pleased that the Government have been persuaded of the case that the cycling organisations, the general public and we on these Benches have pushed as hard as we could. We are delighted with the outcome that the Minister has described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

I am sorry to put this point but it is a worry and it comes from my own period as Minister of Agriculture. I remember a case in which the rules about poisoning squirrels in Scotland were different from those in England. One has to make the delicate point that neither beavers nor squirrels know when they cross the border. I therefore hope that we have adequate methods of dealing with this issue, simply because it makes a nonsense of this if we do not have a common view where we have a common land border. I know in many people’s minds this is a trivial comment, but it is an issue for all these devolved concerns. I wonder whether we are totally satisfied with the careful relationships between the nations and the English Government—otherwise, people will find themselves technically liable for having broken the law, simply because of the fact that animals move where they wish to and do not obey anybody’s law.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, perhaps I can also tackle beavers? The bigger problem, diplomatically, would be if they crossed the Tamar, rather than the Bristol Channel to Wales. I will leave that aside for the moment.

Whether these are Eurasian or American beavers has been a question for some time. I find it strange that it is so difficult to determine this. It is presumably a question of DNA, rather than their accents. Can we hear from the Minister when this might be resolved? Presumably if they are not Eurasian, a much darker alternative has to be faced.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I apologise to the House because I am going to make a very technical and limited statement. We very much approve of this group of amendments but we have one concern, which has been articulated by those who know a great deal more about beavers than I know about anything. Consequently, we listened to their advice with the greatest care. It has come from a number of well intentioned sources—by “well intentioned” I mean those who want to ensure that our environment and natural life flourish. We are concerned about the welfare of species.

Our concern is that the European beaver—a native species that has established populations in the UK—has been excluded from the species control order. The classification of the beaver under Part 1B of Schedule 9,

“Animals no longer normally present”,

is regarded as bizarre. It lists them alongside the wild boar, hence our anxiety. It seems strange that, despite European beavers being recognised as a native species to the UK and a natural component of British river systems, they will need a licence from Natural England to continue to exist in the wild.

The Minister will know that we proposed an amendment in Committee, which was supported by a number of NGOs including Friends of the Earth, that the Government’s definition of invasive, non-native species should correspond to the European Union habitats directive, which was adopted in 1992. That will clarify exactly the status of the European beaver. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that representation is a worthy one and is taken account of by these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that this House agrees with the House of Commons in its Amendment 20, as well as with Amendments 32 and 38. I shall also speak to the subsequent Amendments 20B and 20C, which the Government have tabled in this group. I restate this Government’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. To meet our challenging climate targets we will need significant quantities of renewables, nuclear and gas in our energy mix, and we are committed to listening to the experts and their advice on how to reach those targets. The Committee on Climate Change said that for flexible power supply, the UK will,

“continue to use considerable, albeit declining, amounts of gas well into the 2030s”,

which will leave,

“a considerable gap between production of North Sea gas and our total demand”.

The committee argues that this demand,

“can either be met through imports or UK production of shale gas”,

and concludes that,

“if anything using well-regulated UK shale gas to fill this gap could lead to lower overall lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than continuing to import LNG. It would also increase the proportion of energy produced within the UK, improving our energy sovereignty”.

Notwithstanding this, concerns have been raised in both this House and the other place about how the UK’s shale industry will affect our carbon budgets. We therefore tabled amendments in the other place that will place a duty on the Secretary of State to seek advice from the Committee on Climate Change as to the impact of petroleum produced onshore in England and Wales on our ability to meet the UK’s overall climate change objectives over time. The Secretary of State must consider the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and report on his conclusions at least every five years.

The Government now seek to further strengthen this commitment by specifying that if the Committee on Climate Change advises that shale gas may adversely impact climate change objectives, the Secretary of State must either make regulations providing that the right of use for petroleum and deep geothermal exploitation will no longer be available for future projects or report to Parliament on the reasons for not doing so. Amendment 20B and the consequential Amendment 20C seek to address this commitment. By introducing these amendments we are making it absolutely clear that shale development will remain compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I welcome these amendments and very much welcome what my noble friend just said. I do not point at my noble friend in saying this, but I am always disappointed, given the truism about gas being the future, that we have not made more effort to make sure that, in the short term, gas is substituted for coal and that we have a far more rigorous gas industry than we have at the moment. That was the route forward, but we have been unable to put it to bed during the passage of the Energy Bill and now of the Infrastructure Bill. I hope that it is something that can at least be given greater attention after the election. However, I welcome these new clauses.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group touch on the role of the Committee on Climate Change in advising on the impact which combustion and fugitive emissions from petroleum have on the carbon budget. I understand that this was introduced in the other place as a result of a Lib Dem initiative, and we are fully supportive. We have always said that, if fracking is to take place, we would need the appropriate framework for regulation and need to consider a wider range of issues on which it will have an impact, including climate change. The Climate Change Act 2008, which was introduced by the then Labour Government, was an important piece of legislation that subsequently established the Committee on Climate Change. We therefore support the Committee’s role in advising the Government.

[Lord Teverson]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, sits down, can I just point out one thing that I want to get off my chest? The Climate Change Act was a great thing that the Labour Government did, but among the amendments that they did not allow was one about excluding traded EU ETS certificates from the carbon budget. That means that the power sector is still largely excluded from the Climate Change Act and carbon budgets. It is a big hole in the system and it is regrettable that those changes were never made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I, too, will not make a Second Reading speech, as that stage took place last year. I very much welcome the Opposition’s amendment that was tabled in the House of Commons and the fact that the Government have brought back a version of it that is legally sound. In practical terms, I do not think that it adds a great deal to the environmental protections that we already have and which I consider are strong enough. However, it is good to clarify those and to make sure that the Bill has a more balanced approach to fracking.

However, I thank my noble friend the Minister for having excluded geothermal energy from the amendment, because the issues around that are quite different from those around hydrocarbon fracking and it is appropriate that these amendments do not deal with that particular sector. That is important because at last, after much effort by many people, that industry is starting to show dividends. Geothermal heat, which is relatively low-level in terms of ground exploration, is starting up under the renewable heat incentive. We have two planning permissions in the south-west for potential geothermal electricity generation. It would be tragic if that process stalled after the 20 years or more that a number of us have campaigned to make this very practical renewable energy come through and contribute to the UK’s energy. Clearly, certain regimes will have to apply to that process as well. It is excellent that the change on trespass has allowed that industry to move ahead as that was a major barrier. Therefore, I very much welcome these amendments and hope that the House will not divide on the issue and will decide unanimously to move forward quickly so that both industries can move ahead.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to say a few words about the relationship between fracking and our ancient woodlands. Sadly, I fear that it is not really appreciated by everyone responsible for planning and building projects of all kinds just how precious our ancient woodlands are. Individual trees, if lost, can be replaced. It is true that there is a huge loss to its surroundings because it takes many years to replace a mature tree, but it can in time be replaced, as can avenues and shelter belts, however much they are missed initially. Indeed, some might argue that they are better off being replaced when they get to a certain stage.

Similarly, our forests are planted for their timber—technically a crop, albeit a long-term one. While they provide an excellent contribution to the environment over a period of years provided the right species are planted, they are routinely felled for timber and replanted.

Our ancient woodlands are centuries old. Thankfully, they have survived, largely by chance. They are precious in a unique way and are quite simply irreplaceable. It is essential that they are given very special treatment, which recognises their importance, the contribution they make to our environment, and the truth that once they have been destroyed, however clever we are, they can never be replaced.

Whatever the pros and cons on the subject of fracking, the simple existence of our ancient woodlands need not be a barrier, provided the companies concerned understand their importance and the public concern for them. I quote the Woodland Trust:

“While we believe that, as long as the geological fracturing activity associated with fracking takes place at great depths underground it is very unlikely to have a direct impact on any ancient woodland located above the fracturing sites, we do have concerns about the potential significant impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the drilling wells necessary to enable fracking to take place, and the associated infrastructure that may be put in place to access and transport shale gas/oil. We would therefore like to ensure that areas of ancient woodland are specifically protected so that licences may never be issued for fracking within or adjacent to these highly precious habitats”.

The Minister said that the protected areas have not yet been decided upon. I hope that she will think very carefully about our ancient woodlands. I urge her to indicate in her response, if she can, in the clearest possible terms that the Government accept that our ancient woodlands need very specific protection.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK stands to benefit enormously from the safe and effective development of the offshore shale gas and oil and geothermal industries. The Government have introduced provisions into the Infrastructure Bill which provide a right to use deep-level land 300 metres or more below the surface for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy.

I explained on Report that I had listened to the concerns expressed by stakeholders and by noble Lords that the right to use deep-level land could disadvantage landowners if claims were brought against them in connection with petroleum or deep geothermal operations. While the existing regulatory regime is robust, I agree that we can do more to reassure landowners. We need to be clear that these sorts of claims—brought by a third party against a landowner whose land is accessed through the right of use clauses—cannot be made against a landowner who has done nothing wrong. To this end, I committed to table an amendment to address this issue.

The amendment will provide protection for landowners against claims made by third parties for any loss or damage caused by the exercise of the right of use provision. It does, however, ensure that landowners—including persons with an interest in land, such as persons licensing the land—will not benefit from the exemption if they deliberately fail to act, or decide not to allow someone else to act. To make this fair to landowners, we also propose that a landowner would not have to do anything that would ultimately involve them in bearing any costs. This means, for example, that if a landowner prevented an operator from accessing his land to remediate any damage caused, despite the landowner not having to bear any costs, that landowner could be deemed liable. If, by contrast, the landowner allowed for the damage to be remediated, this amendment ensures that, as well as benefiting from existing protections, the landowner would not be liable to claims from any third parties for loss or damage.

This amendment will complement the existing comprehensive statutory and regulatory regime by protecting landowners, while allowing this source of home-grown energy to develop in a way that is fair to communities. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for having explained that amendment. I must admit that, when I went through it, I was not at all clear what it was trying to get at. I wondered whether this mystery person “L” would be listening to the debate or appearing in it. We have a number of such letters in this Bill.

My noble friend Lady Kramer has already thanked a number of people. I am not sure whether I am in the right area to do this but I want particularly to thank my noble friend Lady Verma for the work that she has done on this Bill. It has gone through everything from community energy to fracking to this whole area of oil. It has been a pleasure to work with her. We have our disagreements more in DCLG areas rather than here, but the Bill when enacted will make a number of things in the area of energy much better.

I also thank my noble friend Lady Kramer for guiding a Bill through the House when only about 10% included her departmental responsibilities. She has been present for a lot of our proceedings even when matters far from her department’s responsibilities were involved. Of course, I support the amendment.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I spoke on these issues in Committee. As has been said by both previous speakers, we managed to get such agreement across the building sector and all the organisations that care about these issues as to what the standard would be. When we came in as a coalition Government, we stuck to that. For some reason, we changed our minds. I would really like the Minister to explain what made us question the agreements we had and the standards we had wanted.

I know that two of my honourable friends who have been Liberal Democrat Ministers in the department have pushed to row back from where we were going, and we have now gone forwards again. However, we have not managed to get any farther. We are owned an explanation from the Minister tonight of why we have ended up in this position when we had such a good agreement back in 2010.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome both these amendments; indeed, they are very similar to amendments I tabled in Committee. I am grateful to both the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate for pushing these further to see what response we get from my noble friend the Minister.

I will try not to repeat everything that I said in Committee. On the minimum number of houses to which this would relate, the Bill takes everything the wrong way. It is absolutely clear that smaller builders—whom this clause does not target very effectively, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said—are more capable of building better-quality homes than the large builders. They are in no way constrained by technology. The clause somehow conveys a government view that small-scale builders are merely jobbing builders with no skills. That is absolutely wrong and sends completely the wrong message. They can deliver a high standard of homes as well as any other building business.

I agree with the right reverend Prelate. I certainly live in a very rural area. A number of the developments there are small scale, and they are all off the grid. I am off the grid. Local developments in villages around me are off the grid. We therefore have the problem that we institutionalise for another 50 to 100 years, or whatever the life expectancy of the property is, potential fuel poverty for those who live in those houses—that or we have an expensive retrofitting programme in the future, which we are already struggling trying to make work. In fact, DECC’s own figure for the cost of retrofitting the current housing stock to get it up to a proper level is £60 billion. That is quite a big sum. We should not be starting to add to that figure.

I welcome the proposal to keep a minimum number of houses; I suggested five in Committee, but 10 is quite reasonable. I welcome that fact that my noble friend the Minister, judging by our conversations, does not see the figure being any greater than that. Clearly, we are having a consultation process at the moment and I am sure that he cannot be specific until that is closed, but I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that that number cannot be too large. We certainly need a sunset to this clause. I hope that that will come out of this as well.

My noble friend Lady Maddock has gone through the questions surrounding the standards for zero-carbon homes very well, and how that issue appears to have moved backwards and forwards and backwards. I look forward to enlightenment in that area. I again come down to what the right reverend Prelate said about allowable solutions. I am not at all against them in concept, but wherever possible the targets need to be met within the building itself or very close to it. Once again, if we do not do that, the people who live in those houses will have increased energy bills for as long as they live there. We might neutralise carbon emissions globally—ensuring that is much more difficult on allowable solutions than actually on the property itself—but then you still have the problem that that property requires more energy to heat it and to keep it to the right standards.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

108: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Determination of planning applications
(1) In circumstances where planning permission for a development has been granted pursuant to section 70(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications: general considerations), any building work remaining to be carried out as part of that development after the expiry of six years from the granting of planning permission shall no longer be permitted to be carried out in compliance with the Approved Document Part L in force at the time when planning permission was granted, but shall instead be required to be carried out in compliance with the Approved Document Part L in force at that time.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
“building work” has the meaning given in regulation 3(1) of the Building Regulations 2010 (meaning of building work);
“Approved Document Part L” means a document issued in pursuance of section 6 of the Building Act 1984 (approved documents) for the purpose of providing guidance with respect to the requirements of Part L of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 (conservation of fuel and power).”

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, this continues a similar theme. I tabled an amendment in Committee to try to get more rigour into ensuring that the building regulations that we have are met and complied with. There is very little point in our legislating if those standards are not met in practice. I quoted the Government’s own adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, which stated that there seemed to be a big gap between what should be happening with the thermal efficiency of homes and what was actually happening. I was not completely reassured by that, but I accept that that is mainly a role of local government.

I am trying move on to address the fact that it often takes—and certainly has over recent years—a long time for a planning permission to become a built-out and lived-in development. We have the situation—I look on it as an anomaly or rather a loophole—whereby the building regulations to which builders must build relate to the date of the planning permission rather than when the development is constructed and completed. If that is only within a couple of years, it makes no difference whatever. We have, however, a number of developments—at certain times more than others—when that stretches over a considerable period. I realise that planning permissions themselves have a shelf life. After three years, if they have not been used, they go into abeyance. However, I remind noble Lords that under that system, as long as you do a certain amount of work—you do not have to complete it—that planning permission remains live. That is something that is done very regularly to make sure that planning permissions are not lost.

I was very impressed by the Minister’s figure of £200 that would potentially be saved per annum by the moving up of building regulations by the Government. Of course, that illustrates very well the extra cost to residents of houses that do not meet those standards—either because they have been exempted under the small development regime that we talked about in the previous amendment or because houses are being built under building regulations that are several years old.

It seems to me that this is something that needs to be fixed—for consumers and certainly for the government strategy on fuel poverty and zero-carbon homes. So I am putting forward an extremely modest proposal that is a longstop: if developments have not been completed within six years of gaining planning permission, at that point they must comply with the building regulations of that time rather than those when the planning permission took place. I have tried to make this amendment as clear as possible. I hope it says that. I very much hope that it is in line with government policy and that this is something of a loophole that we would like to close—particularly when we have periods when building and construction developments take a particularly long time.

Indeed, I would ask whether there is a temptation sometimes to get planning permissions early. Where we have land banks, it perhaps means that construction is delayed but it almost gives a benefit to developers to hang on to undeveloped land. I would like to see this very sensible measure used as an incentive for building, particularly of dwellings when we have such a national housing shortage, to be started and completed within a reasonable period. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for raising a very important and interesting point about developments that are not completed within six years of the granting of planning permission. As we have heard, it requires the development to be carried out in accordance with current building regulations relating to conservation of fuel and power. This is an attempt to address the very serious point that we have delays in the completion of developments, particularly housing. Given the housing crisis we face in this country, the objective should be to encourage sites with planning permission to be built out as soon as possible.

This is one of the issues that the Lyons report addressed for us. Although this is not the occasion for an extensive discourse on that report, one of the interesting points it makes is that some 80,000 unbuilt homes have planning permission from 2010 or earlier. Some of these will be built to 2006 standards, and so be eight or more years out of date. One of the issues that this amendment raises is how practical it is retrospectively to amend the applicable building regulations. There will obviously be issues around homes that are partially constructed at the cut-off point. Getting homes built earlier is good for obvious reasons, although, of course, it does not necessarily do anything to raise the standards of applicable building regulations.

I might resort to going back to the Lyons report. Obviously, not all these recommendations are yet, or will become, policy, but under the heading “Use it or lose it”, it suggests that,

“the life of a planning permission should be reduced to two years with higher fees applying for renewal of expired permissions”.

That would present an alternative mechanism whereby people have to go back and face updated building regulations. Certainly, more substantive work should be required to count as the commencement of development. That is a problem the noble Lord identified. The report also suggests that,

“councils should have powers to levy a charge equivalent to council tax if land allocated in a plan with or without permission is not brought forward within five years”.

Compulsory purchase powers could be strengthened and streamlined to make it easier for public bodies to acquire land where it is not brought forward and where it is a priority for development, so there are alternative ways to encourage developments to take place and perhaps to realign the nature of those developments with updated building regulations. The noble Lord has raised a very interesting point which I am sure will get a full response from the Minister. One hopes that something could actually flow from this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his support and his very good response to the concept that we are discussing. I look forward to the Labour Party developing that policy further. I particularly thank my noble friend the Minister for a very good and useful reply to my thoughts on this. I will read all that he has said very carefully. I bow to his knowledge of this area, which is much more excellent than my own, and which he has both through practical experience and through government. I hope that this might be the start of a further dialogue in this area—one which I will take an interest in, particularly regarding the use of that flexibility that is already there within the legislation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 108 withdrawn.