Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Lord Tunnicliffe ExcerptsThursday 21st January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 View all Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 98-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (18 Jan 2021)
Lord Tunnicliffe
“General duty
The Secretary of State must exercise his or her functions under this Part in accordance with the general duty under section 1 of the Transport Act 2000.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to exercise functions in respect of airspace change proposals under this Bill in accordance with the Secretary of State’s general duty in respect of air traffic services provided for by the Transport Act 2000.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 1
“would require the Secretary of State to exercise functions in respect of airspace change proposals under this Bill in accordance with the Secretary of State’s general duty in respect of air traffic services provided for by the Transport Act 2000.”
Amendment 10 is complementary to this amendment.
Amendment 2 would ensure that
“the Secretary of State must, before making a direction requiring a person to progress an airspace change, consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that the direction is necessary to deliver the CAA’s airspace strategy and is reasonably practicable to comply with.”
Amendment 5 would ensure that, before making direction requiring a person to co-operate in an air- space change, the Secretary of State must consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that it is reasonably practical for the recipient of the direction to comply with it.
Amendment 8 would align the test for the variation of the direction with that applicable to making a direction. Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to publish reasons for any direction to progress or co-operate in an airspace change proposal or variations or revocations of such direction made under this part. Amendment 11 would make the Secretary of State responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy and related reports.
Amendment 13 concerns the report on general aviation. General aviation—this was the case in my day, which is now some decades ago, but I think it still persists—particularly light general aviation, is essentially where all our airline pilots are initially trained; that is how they come into the profession and so on. It is important that it is properly facilitated with respect to airspace changes and development. Fortunately, from conversations with the Minister, I believe that she shares that view, and I hope that, in her response, she will set out the Government’s support for general aviation and how its interests will be taken account of in the developing airspace debate. Hopefully, this will leave general aviation properly provided for and, almost as important, feeling that it has been properly consulted in the development.
In summary, this group of amendments seeks to clarify the role of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has a role that is related to the CAA in various processes. It is not entirely clear who is in charge. The Bill as written gives the Secretary of State and the CAA the powers to achieve airspace change, but it is not clear who is actually responsible for getting it done. I would like to hear from the Minister that it is clear that the achievement of improvements and a new airspace capability is down to the Secretary of State, answerable to Parliament, and that his relationship with the CAA may be a partnership but he is the person in the partnership who is held accountable for execution and success.
The rest of the amendments are about requiring appropriate relationships between the parties and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the Bill, but I must use this opportunity to say that it is a bit of a mess. That is not surprising, because it has such a long history: the Bill itself is the result of attempts over several years to get legislation of this nature, and of course we had the Committee stage over a year ago.
Since then, there has been a dramatic reversal in the fortunes of the aviation industry—one that we would never have foreseen at the time when we spoke about this last. The impact of coronavirus has undermined all branches of aviation. In addition, of course, since we last spoke we have left the transition period following Brexit, but we are still at the point where we have to adhere to international norms and regulations.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
There are no questions for the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. In light of the assurances she has given us, I am happy to withdraw Amendment 1 and send this Bill to the other end, where they will no doubt consider her response in great depth. I shall also not be moving the rest of the amendments in my name in this group.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“( ) If a direction given to a person under subsection (1) is predominantly or wholly to enable the air change proposals of a third party to be completed as part of the masterplan for airspace modernisation and not an airspace change proposal of the person itself and would lead to adverse financial impacts for that person, the Secretary of State may compensate that person and may recover the cost of compensation wholly or in part from the third party.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
I move Amendment 3 and I will speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 3 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts. Amendment 4 would empower the Secretary of State to provide that a person who is directed to progress an airspace change is fairly compensated for doing so, and that the compensation can be recovered from another person involved in airspace change where appropriate. Amendment 6 would empower the Secretary of State to require a person involved in airspace change to compensate another person who had been directed to progress an airspace change. Amendment 7 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts.
One of the problems of getting organisations to co-operate is that some parties are unwilling to do so and they will use the financial impact on them as their excuse, particularly if one party is required to co-ordinate the activity and invest considerable work but is not likely to gain financially from the changes it is developing. Then it will be reluctant to move. Efforts to improve airflow planning over south-east England have been going on for at least a decade. It is important that, if it is a matter of financial limitations, the Bill allows appropriate mechanisms for money to flow between parties and perhaps from government.
This is important between big players, such as the airports and NATS. It is also important in the case of small airports or airfields on the periphery of the controlled airspace, where small changes may have significant adverse effects on them and they are not equipped—particularly financially—to mount a proper representation to have their voices heard without some recognition of the financial burden on them. Clearly, the movement of monies between the parties as allowed for in this group of amendments may not be necessary, but since we are creating a Bill to address all eventualities in the development of modern airspace it is important at this stage to make sure that there are facilities for money to move about and, in extremis, for government perhaps to finance parts of that development. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, our airspace modernisation is a complex but necessary process. It is necessary in the modern world because it enables environmental gains in an industry increasingly under fire for its emissions and where the technological solutions are much more long term than they are in the case of, for example, road vehicles. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has just pointed out, one person’s gain is often another person’s loss. These are useful amendments because there is a real fear of a potential conflict between airports as the modernisation process goes forward.
In Committee, I mentioned that Stansted and Luton airports, for example, are very close geographically. It is not impossible to imagine that what would help Stansted might deprive Luton; for example, a potential airspace route that would cost it money in terms of potential for new services. Since the Committee stage, airports have found themselves in great financial difficulty because of travel restrictions. These amendments are therefore designed to ensure what I assume is an even-handed approach from the Secretary of State down through the CAA and the Airspace Change Organising Group.
The Airport Operators Association remains concerned about the funding of this issue—I raised that in the last group and was delighted to hear that the Minister has agreed to deal with it in her response here. When this matter was raised previously by the Airport Operators Association, the Aviation Minister suggested three sources of funding in a situation where one airport was going to win at the expense of another. The first suggestion was that alternative sponsors might pay. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain exactly what is intended with that proposal.
The second suggestion from the Aviation Minister was that funding might come from the £10-million airspace modernisation fund. That sounds fine but it is actually a relatively small sum so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether that is a fixed sum or extra funding would potentially be available.
Thirdly, there was a suggestion of government funding on a case-by-case basis. If the Government have any further thoughts on this, it would be really good to hear them at this stage. I hope that the Minister can put the Government’s intentions on record today to clarify these issues.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation and for placing it on the record. I note that the Government are not entirely closed to the idea that financial considerations may be important, and that they may have to act to ease the burden on one party against another or make some arrangement, even if it is not a direction. I found the answers useful; unfortunately, I would have found an answer where she agreed with me entirely more useful. Nevertheless, I think that this has gone far enough for me to be happy to withdraw the amendment, and I give notice that I do not intend to move the other amendments in this group.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, these amendments relate to the CAA’s function to investigate complaints over breaches of licence conditions. Since the CAA has considerable powers, any limitation of those powers needs to be carefully balanced. There are concerns within various parts of the aviation industry about how the dual role of the CAA effectively operates in relation to these issues.
I regret that I am speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, because I want to listen carefully to the thoughts behind his amendments. It is important to fully understand the purpose of Amendment 20 in narrowing the power to obtain information. I believe it is in the spirit of the other limitations within this group of amendments, which seem entirely sensible.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we fully support Amendments 12 and 21. We put forward amendments in Committee, in the light of conversations with the CAA, which we felt made some good points. We put these to the Government, who said, as Governments always do, “We don’t think much of your amendments but we agree with what you’re trying to do. Can we do it our way?” And my view is, yes, we can do it in the way they wish to draft it.
I turn to Amendment 19. In many ways, the Minister has answered the question: will the CAA behave in a responsible and proportionate way? She has basically assured us that it will, and that it is implied in general legislation.
On Amendment 20, we felt that the CAA’s powers were overly wide. I do not have a more specific reason for tabling the amendment, other than that the two concepts in Amendments 19 and 20 stood together.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is part two of a discussion that we started earlier this week on the SI on this subject, which gave the Government temporary powers. Since Committee stage, a year ago, we have had the impact of the pandemic and the EU has waived the usual 80:20 rules on slot usage. That was welcome because it avoids ghost flights—empty flights, just to keep slots.
In the amendments the Government are giving themselves powers until 2024 to continue to waive the rules altogether or to vary them, possibly by varying the percentages. That is a whole new issue to have entered the Bill—something that was simply not there a year ago. I wondered about the 2024 date and whether the period was a tad lengthy but time and time again in this pandemic, things have taken much longer to play out than we thought they would. On reflection, 2024 seems to allow a reasonable period ahead to give a level of certainty.
Because we did not have these substantial amendments prior to Report today, however, I have some questions for the Minister. First, Amendment 12A involves temporary powers to make regulations about slot allocation. Paragraph 4(d) of the new article it inserts would allow the co-ordinator to “withdraw slots” from a carrier where it is determined that
“the air carrier has ceased its operations at the airport concerned”.
My question to the Minister is: how would that be determined? I have in mind a question similar to the one I asked earlier in the week about Gatwick. Virgin has announced that it will not fly from Gatwick in future and will no longer have a base there. Indeed, it no longer does have a base there—but it retains its slots. Slots are a very valuable commodity, so how is such a situation likely to be approached in future?
My second question is on the same amendment. Paragraph 2(a) refers to “a relevant previous year”, which is later defined as:
“any previous year that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for … comparing levels of … traffic.”
That is an extraordinarily broad and vague definition, as levels of traffic vary dramatically according to the make-up of carriers from specific airports—with new ones coming and going—and to their commercial decisions. It also uses the term of a year, while slot waivers work in seasons to reflect the patterns of demand, which vary from season to season. Can the Minister confirm that the year as a whole will be the point of comparison?
Another point that I raised in our debate earlier this week is that the number of available slots currently greatly outweighs the capacity of the airlines to fill them, because as the pandemic has progressed they have greatly reduced their staff and the number of planes that they own or rent. How do the Government intend to approach this problem, whereby the number of slots cannot be filled by the current capacity of airlines?
Slot hoarding has to be tackled. The 80:20 rule is designed to maintain the competitiveness of the industry, which means fair ticket prices for passengers. If the waiver is exploited it will be bad for new entrants to the market, bad for passengers, and bad for airports. The powers or conditions that the Government have included here, therefore, and the potential to vary the 80:20 ratio, seem a sensible and welcome approach to the situation that we face, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanations.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we generally support these four amendments, and we thank the Minister for tabling them for our examination. Nevertheless, one must recognise that the dilemma brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his contribution, is a real one. It is important to see these amendments as quite separate from the general problem. Can the Minister tell the House what examination of this problem the Government expect to conduct in the future?
I know from my own experience, which goes back to the 1980s, that slot allocation is a very difficult and challenging problem in the airline industry. One of the problems in life is that when there are many parties to finding an overall solution to the distribution of a scarce resource the solutions you get become very difficult to change: creating a level of change that would address the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would be in the best “Yes Minister” category—very brave. I hope, nevertheless, that the Minister can lay out some of the plans for addressing this issue.
On the amendments as a whole, I have a few questions. The Minister may have answered them—I was slightly distracted, so I hope the House will forgive me if we go over old ground.
First, my understanding is that each season’s solution, under these amendments, will be subject to an affirmative order. I would value a simple assurance on that.
Secondly, the Heathrow authorities told us that in their view the agreements that were being developed through the Worldwide Airport Slot Board were more optimal than the solution we have had to adopt for the summer of 2021. Should, therefore, the parties—the airlines, airports and other stakeholders—come to a worldwide agreement on slot allocation? These things are co-ordinated on a worldwide basis. Certainly, when I was a senior executive the most important date of my year was the IATA timetable conference in October, which addressed the following summer’s slots. If the airlines and airports produce an overall solution, is there enough flexibility in this proposed solution to allow the Secretary of State—I stress allow, not require—to endorse such a comprehensive, multiagency agreement?
Finally, can the Minister assure the House—and the industry—that there will be adequate consultation with all stakeholders for each season that is managed under these amendments?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their constructive engagement on these amendments, and I recognise that it is far from ideal to bring them to the House on Report. It is simply the nature of the beast and the situation that we are in: these amendments relate to the Covid-19 pandemic and our hoped-for recovery from it.
I will first address the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. He set out many of the challenges faced by the Government—both the short-term task of building back our aviation industry, and the longer-term strategy for the sector. I recognise that slot allocation is a challenge. I would not say it is controversial—it is just one of the challenges that one has to deal with.
The Government have recognised that this is an issue and carried out a consultation on it, alongside, I think, the consultation on the aviation strategy—which was a little while ago, in perhaps 2018 or 2019. We did, therefore, recognise the issue, and we asked the industry and other parties with an interest in the aviation sector how we might reform slot allocation. It remains the Government’s intention to do a piece of work on the long-term reform of slot allocation. But that is not for now. Now, we have to deal with the current situation by making amendments that are not minor but do not amount to an overhaul of the entire slot allocation process.
We do take into account the challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised. The noble Lord asked whether we would take a different approach to the EU, and I suspect that we will, but not that we necessarily will—it depends on the EU’s approach to the periods after summer 2021. We will, however, certainly be looking at other percentages in relation to a waiver, and considering very carefully the conditions that we attach to the regulations.
The noble Lord also mentioned enforcement powers, and I think that I said, in my opening remarks, that we would consider them. There are probably at least three key elements to the way in which we will take this forward. We need to think about: new entrants and whether they are able to get into the market; the needs of passengers, which is a critical element; and—as the noble Lord pointed out to great effect—regional connectivity, particularly to places, such as Aberdeen, where the alternative is very long. Being on a train for seven hours does not sound like huge fun.
I think we will return to many of the points the noble Lord raised when we discuss the regulations that will be put before your Lordships’ House. I look forward to those debates; I think they will be quite challenging, and we will be able to have discussions on all the elements he mentioned.
Turning to issues raised the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I am pleased that she agrees with 2024. Would it not be nice if we did not have to do anything until 2024? But I suspect we may need to be doing something by then, so we are just future-proofing the amendments. The noble Baroness had a number of quite detailed questions about how one, for example, determines that an operator has ceased operations. Those are exactly the things we are asking the sector at the moment. The consultation, as the noble Baroness knows, started right at the end of December—a three-week targeted consultation to try to get to the bottom of these very knotty problems.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I am speaking to this general set of amendments, but I want to speak particularly on disabled safety features on drones. The Bill should make it illegal to fly a drone if any safety features are inoperable or have been disabled. My noble friend Lord Whitty tabled an amendment to this effect in Committee. The Minister’s assurance then was that the safety feature that could be referred to would be electronic conspicuity, the disabling of which would be covered under other provisions. That, we believe, is not the case. Lights, geo-awareness and geo-fencing, software functions that limit altitude, remote ID and various redundancy measures could all be covered under this provision. There are technical requirements for certain systems whereby the user cannot modify them—for example, data associated with remote ID. However, this does not protect against deliberate hacking or intentional disabling of systems. A provision that makes these acts illegal is therefore relevant.
BALPA has engaged directly with staff at the DfT on this point and we are grateful to the Minister’s officials for doing so. We note that the Government believe that sufficient safeguards are already available in the Air Navigation Order to cover this matter, but, overall, we still believe that a specific and separate offence should be created in the Bill. I make these points for the Minister to take on board, as it is highly likely that this sensible and proportionate amendment may be urged when the matter is considered in the other place. I hope the Minister can take this back to the department and reflect on it as the Bill proceeds further.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start by congratulating the Minister on her spirited 12-minute speech, which covered all these amendments.
In the heady days of the 1960s, I went to university for three years. Her Majesty was good enough to teach me to fly in the Royal Air Force. At university, I ran the college bar and happened to get a maths degree. It was useful training, which led me into an airline career. Running the college bar gave me first-hand experience in line management, and I am afraid that the only effect of the maths degree was to make me even more pedantic than I was naturally.
Accordingly, when the Minister was kind enough to send a letter setting out these amendments and where they were, I read it and alighted on some of the words used. She wrote to clarify that these were “largely” technical changes, saying that it is important to note that these amendments, if accepted, will not change the policy intention of the Bill and are, “in most cases”, just making minor but essential changes. Either the words are careless, and the changes are wholly technical—though I believe that there is no such thing in most cases—or some of these amendments are not technical in nature. In her response, can the Minister tell me which of these many amendments is not a technical change but has some substance? Or can she assure me that the words “largely” and “in most cases” should have been omitted from her letter and that all the changes are technical?
I ask for this assurance because we do not have the resources to work through such a large number of amendments. We made an attempt—and I commend our adviser, Ben, who worked through them. He could not find anything that was not minor and technical, but I would value the Minister enlightening me and satisfying my pedantic approach.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I have grappled with all these amendments. I wondered whether what seemed minor and technical to me might seem very significant to someone working in the industry. I thank the Minister and her officials for their thorough briefings. However, this all shines a light on the unsatisfactory situation with this Bill—a major tranche of amendments has been produced because of the time that has elapsed.
I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. They underline the need for a much more comprehensive approach and review. Although my amendment was narrowly lost, I hope the Minister will bear in mind the points I have made and the need to look more comprehensively at this in the near future.
As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, as ever, the views of BALPA must hold great weight. It is important that safety is at the forefront of our minds, on all these issues. But because this is a diverse, complex and fast-changing subject, only people actually working in the industry are able to spot the problems when they first appear.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I cannot see anything here which is not detailed and technical. Therefore, I have no objections to the amendments.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 22, in simple terms, allows an appropriate authority to destroy a drone. The Minister has been kind enough to debate this at some length and wrote me a letter on 11 January setting out three points. First, legally, the power to destroy a UA already exists. Secondly, operationally, destroying a UA is not generally desirable. Thirdly, existing technology is such that destroying a UA is often unnecessary. I am not being pedantic here, but the words in the last two points, particularly, are of a partial kind. The Minister does not really need to debate reasons two and three with me. When it comes to the third, I know that “existing technology is such that destroying a UA is often unnecessary”, but it may be necessary. I accept that, “operationally, destroying a UA is not generally desirable”, as all sorts of second-order effects would have to be taken into account. Nevertheless, the only point I wish to debate is that, “legally, the power to destroy a UA already exists”. In her response, I would like the Minister to convince me of that.
I am aware, through my previous responsibilities, of the impact that can be made with two kilos of Semtex. The potential for a determined terrorist to use a UA for malicious terrorism is real. Such a terrorist coming from a sophisticated organisation would, of course, not have a drone with all the protective devices that a commercially applied drone has. The Gatwick incident showed that the police were then powerless, probably for technical reasons, to stop massive disruption taking place by the use of a drone. It seems to me that if a serious terrorist-like incident were developing, one would want a clear power for the authorities to destroy a drone. The burden rests with the Minister to convince us that the powers that exist are genuinely sufficient to make sure that the authorities, in appropriate circumstances, could destroy a drone in the interests of safety and limiting damage or massive destruction. I beg to move.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, but this is my application to join the pedants’ club, which was advertised somewhat earlier.
The amendment says
“insert ‘destroy the aircraft or’”.
The clause would then read:
“The constable may destroy the aircraft or require a person to ground the aircraft”.
I thought that this was a sort of “Derbyshire Constabulary amendment”, where they go chasing round after people—a constable cannot destroy an aircraft. What would we have? Would we have Derbyshire police with a popgun? I am afraid that it just will not work.
I can see what is meant but I can also see that we need to think this through a bit more thoroughly, particularly the attendant risks that might arise. The power conveyed in this Act could almost certainly be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I speak as a long-standing alternate member of the Council of Europe, and, indeed, as someone who was for some time a chair of its committee on implementation of judgments of the court. Even if the wording were sound, I am not sure that the principle is. You would need a proper judicial process in order to destroy a drone, and you would not be able to do it as an either/or—we will either destroy the drone or make you land it and then we will talk to you. I suggest that the amendment is well meaning but, unfortunately, defective.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his amendment, which gives the police the power to destroy a UA if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that it has been, or is likely to be, used in the commission of an offence. We have had many a thought-provoking discussion on this, both inside and outside the Chamber. If he will forgive me, I will set out the Government’s stall in full, even though I am aware that he accepts two of the arguments that I am about to put forward.
While I understand the intention behind this amendment, it is critical that all powers in this Bill are necessary and proportionate, and we have worked very hard with the Home Office and the police to ensure that this is the case. Our aspiration for this Bill has always been to ensure that we provide the police with the powers necessary to effectively respond to UA incidents, while ensuring that we do not inadvertently discourage positive UA use in the UK.
I will set out the three key reasons as to why the Government are of the view that this amendment is not required. First—I think that this is the point that the noble Lord needs to be convinced on—from a legal standpoint, the powers to destroy a UA already exist. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967—the CLA—allows the reasonable use of force in the prevention of crime. This is not police-specific legislation, but it is legislation that the police can, and do, rely on in circumstances where force is required. It would allow a police officer to destroy a UA in extremis if it were deemed necessary, subject to risk assessments.
The powers in this Bill must be necessary and proportionate, and the police assess that Section 3 of the CLA 1967 is sufficient and proportionate in the case of a UA, in line with other areas of policing. This legislation is used for other aspects of policing that require force in the prevention of crime, such as the use of police batons. Therefore, there is no legal requirement to provide for this power in the Bill. Indeed, doing so would set an unusual precedent: why would we specify a drone and not anything else? This could be taken to undermine reliance on the CLA 1967 in other areas.
Secondly, destroying a UA is not generally operationally desirable because there is a need to maintain presentable evidence as part of a police investigation and any subsequent court proceedings. Destroying a UA could render digital and forensic examinations impossible, potentially compromising an investigation.
Thirdly, existing technology is such that destroying a UA is also often unnecessary. The Government’s counter-unmanned aircraft strategy committed to the creation of a new national police counter-unmanned aircraft capability in the UK. This capability makes use of technology that is more sophisticated and does not by necessity result in the destruction of the UA. It relies on defeat countermeasures, known as “effectors” or “jammers”, which have a number of impacts on the UA, such as causing it to return home, landing it or forcing it to hover—the specific outcome depends on the UA programming. These effectors defeat the UA and prevent whatever malicious action it was going to take in a way that is more proportionate, easier for the operator to use and less likely to cause unwarranted collateral damage than the use of technology that destroys the UA.
The noble Lord previously raised a concern that the Bill and the package of related counter-UA measures we are taking would not be impactful in a high-threat UA incident. I will now set out why I believe that the Bill, alongside these other measures, would have sufficient impact. First, our operating procedures across a range of critical national infrastructure sites, such as airports and other key sites such as prisons, are constantly evolving and have significantly improved since the Gatwick 2018 drone incursion. This allows for a faster, more effective response by both the site and the police. The Bill supplements this as it extends the range of public authorities that can be given authorisations to make lawful the use of jamming equipment to counter UA.
Secondly, as I mentioned, the police have new capabilities and counter-UA measures available to them, which provide a step change in our ability to respond to UA incidents, compared to Gatwick 2018. The Bill supplements this by providing the necessary powers for the police to use this capability to its fullest extent.
Thirdly, if an incident occurs that cannot be stopped by either our operating procedures or our police capability, we can use Section 3 of the CLA 1967 to use necessary reasonable force to stop or, where absolutely necessary and proportionate, damage or even destroy the UA.
I hope that, based on the reassurances I have given, noble Lords will be satisfied that this Bill provides the police with sufficient powers to deal with UA offences, and that there are existing powers in law under which the destruction of a UA is, and can be, justified, where it is absolutely necessary in the circumstances. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I listened to that explanation and remain unconvinced that it will not cause significant delay in what would be a fast-moving event and that the police or other appropriate authority would not, in fact, be more effective if they had the power to destroy a drone in a serious emergency situation. However, I have a difficult problem in pressing this any further in that the Minister arranged a meeting with senior Home Office and police people who said that they did not want the power, and if they are not attracted to having it, it would be unreasonable of me to press this further, having failed to convince the Government.
Before I finish, I note that we have done Report in three hours and 30 minutes. An observer of our normal proceedings might say that we have not taken this Bill seriously. In fact, we have taken it very seriously, and I commend the Minister and her people for the enormous amount of time, effort and letter writing they have put in to responding to the many questions and concerns we have put to them. Accordingly, I can assure society in general and anybody watching this event that opposition scrutiny and, as far as I can tell, Liberal Democrat scrutiny of the Bill have been very thorough indeed and very efficiently handled by the Minister and her people, and I thank her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Airports Slot Allocation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has withdrawn so I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. We do not seem to have the noble Lord.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Lord Naseby, are you unmuted? Are you going to speak to us? No? In which case, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has also withdrawn so we will move on to those winding unless the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is there.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. She related it to an amendment to be tabled to the ATMUA Bill that we will consider on Thursday, which made it all make sense. It is a great shame that that relationship was not brought out in the Explanatory Memorandum, as it would have saved me quite a lot of time in trying to understand it. Just to make sure that I am clear, can the Minister confirm that this SI will effectively be used just once, to permit alleviation for summer 2021? Does it have precisely the same rules as the revised Regulation 95/93 had for winter 2021? Is it effectively a bridge to the powers that the Secretary of State will have when the amendment to the ATMUA Bill is agreed? Is another, negative order necessary to complete the bridge?
Looking to make a slightly longer speech, I alighted on paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which is about consultation. I noticed that whereas paragraph 10.1 said what the response was, paragraph 10.2 was silent. I was then lobbied. There is a rule of the Medes and Persians that lobbyists always lobby you the day before you have to make a speech. The institution lobbying me was Heathrow. While I thought that this was a perfectly sensible, uncontroversial measure, it emerges that it is not as uncontroversial as it seems.
Heathrow introduced me to the Worldwide Airport Slot Board, or WASB, comprising the Airports Council International, the International Air Transport Association and the Worldwide Airport Coordinators Group. It raised three questions. It seems that the WASB had put together for summer 2021 an agreement, which was not as simple as the terms of this SI, to better relate the management of slots in the summer 2021. Heathrow claims that this was supported by airlines, airport operators and a number of Governments. So the first question it asks is, if the majority of industry responses to the ongoing consultation do not support a blanket waiver, why are the Government pushing ahead with it? It goes on to point out the value of this general agreement and notes that it has already been accepted by Canada, Cambodia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Hong Kong, South Africa, Singapore and Mexico. It asks why the Government are looking to be out of step with other nations and not consulting on the industry proposals, as per the number of other countries around the world?
Commenting on the amendment we are to discuss on Thursday—in a sense I give notice of this now—will the Government outline and propose the type and scope of industry consultation, and the timeline to which it should take place, before a policy decision on future waivers is taken?
I hope the Minister can give me some reaction to these points. Some may be fairly straightforward, with respect to this statutory instrument, but I am sure it will be a useful input to our debate on Thursday about the amendment to the Bill.
I hope she will also forgive my making one or two general points about the situation we find ourselves in at the moment. The industry is in dire straits and, at the end of the day, glamorous as it is, it will not survive without increased support from the Government, one way or another. I welcome the Treasury’s business rates relief for airports and ground services; however, this barely makes a dent while the whole sector continues to bleed cash. The Government must do more and, as promised last year, announce robust financial support packages for the industry. The Government must now also set out a clear plan on how they expect restrictions to be lifted with the vaccine rollout.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for raising these issues. I take his point about the safety of the public and protesters, and I hope that he will get appropriate assurances from the Minister.
The issue is one of corporate culture, particularly on safety. With the permission of the House, I will take this as an opportunity to say a word or two about safety. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was quite right to say that HS2 is a linear building site. She referred to safety standards two or three decades ago. Those were decades when I was responsible for parts of railway safety. I became managing director of London Underground nine months after we had killed 31 people at King’s Cross. That made safety my highest priority for the next 12 years. Essentially, I discovered that safety comes from personal leadership by the people at the top.
Subsequently, I was chairman of the Rail Safety and Standards Board for five years. During the early period of my responsibilities, the Channel Tunnel was completed. That cost 10 lives. We were about to start building the Jubilee Line extension and, pro rata, we would have expected to kill some people, but we decided that that was unacceptable. We set as a major objective of the project that we should kill nobody—and I am delighted to say that we succeeded.
It was a £3.5 billion project, built in extremely difficult conditions under some of the most sensitive, complex and little-understood parts of central London. Leadership was key to conducting the programme to the highest safety standards, which were not traditional in the construction industry at that point. We achieved that by involving the very top people among the contractors. As part of their contracting process, they had to turn up with their managing directors and understand, and commit to, high standards of safety. A key feature of our whole safety philosophy was that London Underground always retained principal responsibility for safety, whoever was doing the work. You cannot subcontract responsibility: you might be able to join other people in that responsibility but you cannot subcontract it.
In preparing for this debate, I looked at the HS2 health and safety policy. It is fine as far as it goes, but I do not know whether there is a real safety culture. Can the noble Baroness take back to the Minister in charge of HS2 my strong recommendation that he makes it his top priority to assure himself that a health and safety culture exists in HS2? I freely offer my help and advice in this task.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Randall for tabling the amendment on this very important topic. The health, safety and well-being of the communities along the route of the new railway, of HS2 staff and of protestors is a primary concern for HS2 Ltd, which has a “safe at heart” approach, putting health, safety and well-being at the heart of the project. That ethos is carried through those employed by HS2 Ltd and those in its supply chain. This goes beyond the worksite itself. People must be safe when they are working on large, complex HS2 construction sites; they must be safe when they live, work or travel near the worksites; and they must be safe when travelling on roads affected by HS2 works and traffic. That is why HS2 Ltd already reports on health and safety in its annual report and accounts, using standard industry metrics. The overall health and safety index score increased throughout the 2019-20 financial year.
We recognise that, given the nature of the works on HS2 and the profile of the project, it is necessary for security personnel to be a part of the project. They ensure the health and safety of those who work on HS2 and those who live and work near it. Those security personnel are held to strict standards. It is a contractual requirement that all security guards working on the HS2 project must hold a licence issued by the Security Industry Authority. Additionally, the companies that they work for must be part of the Security Industry Authority’s voluntary approved contractor scheme, which acts as a quality assurance scheme for the private security industry.
HS2 Ltd has been very clear on the values that it expects to be followed by all staff in its supply chain, and on the behaviours of those in public-facing roles, such as security guards. Actions or behaviours that fall short of these expectations are dealt with firmly but fairly after a thorough investigation. My noble friend Lord Randall asked how members of the public can bring forward concerns. HS2 Ltd operates a freephone community helpline, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, where anyone can register their concerns. HS2 Ltd has committed to respond to questions and complaints quickly and efficiently, with an acknowledgement within two working days and a response within a maximum of 20 working days if the query cannot be answered straightaway.
Of course, there are also those determined to obstruct the works, with the aim of halting the progress of a project authorised by Parliament. We recognise that members of the public have a right to protest peacefully and in a lawful manner, but it is entirely proper that once Parliament has authorised a scheme, contractors should be allowed to get on with building it. Where any protestors refuse to leave land needed for construction and must be removed, HS2 Ltd works with specialist security staff, the police, the fire service and the ambulance service to do this safely.
Health and safety on worksites, and in the workforce, is of vital importance, especially when it comes to Covid-19. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the HS2 Ltd supply chain has stipulated to all staff and subcontractors the requirement to comply with government and industry guidelines. Where works cannot be delivered in accordance with Public Health England and industry guidelines, sites have temporarily closed to ensure the safety of staff and local communities. Nevertheless, some staff may have to be present to make the safety assessments and to ensure that the sites remain safe and secure.
I was very interested to hear the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and certainly I will take his suggestions back to my colleague Andrew Stephenson MP, the Minister for HS2. It was heartwarming to hear of such a large project being constructed so successfully. The amendment is welcome. It is an opportunity to raise these issues. HS2 Ltd must be held to account by the high standards that it has set. I hope that my noble friend is reassured by what I have said, is less Swampy or Grumpy, is happy, and on that basis is able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak to the principle behind the amendment rather than its exact terminology.
There was a time when NDAs were exceptional, but well over 300 of them for HS2 show that we have moved a long way from that in terms of commercial procedure. Why do we have FoI questions and FoI legislation? In many cases, processes such as NDAs were being used to hide inconvenient pieces of information. Information is power; it always has been and always will be.
My noble friend Lady Kramer excellently outlined the complex issues associated with this, particularly on proscribed people. That picks up on the Minister’s response when we discussed in Committee the issue of the number of people coming forward as whistleblowers.
However, the issue goes far wider than HS2 and will, I am sure, be aired in this House on other occasions. The Grenfell inquiry is totally separate, but that public inquiry has revealed how important the detail of commercial arrangements is and what motivation there may be for such hiding that detail. There is commercial realism, but nevertheless, there is a balance to be struck. When individuals sign these agreements they often do so without fully appreciating the complexity of what they are signing up to.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too attended the Zoom session on this issue. I thank the Minister and those present for organising it.
I can see that NDAs were necessary in the consultation stage, but there is a question mark, which is difficult to debate, over whether they were necessary in such volume. More importantly, was there possible misuse to suppress whistleblowers? We were given some assurances about that, which, once again, I found at least partially convincing. I hope that the Minister will repeat those assurances for the record.
There is a more general point as to whether NDAs are overly used in public procurement. I believe that there may be a case for more transparency and that the Government should consider launching a general investigation into transparency in public procurement. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that that is a bigger issue and it would be inappropriate to pursue it further at this point.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that transparency is a key issue in relation to HS2. It enables oversight by Ministers and Parliament, and provides accountability to the public on how we are spending taxpayers’ money and on how the project is being delivered. This amendment is trying to get to the heart of this issue of transparency. However, I do not recognise that it is of any aid in this endeavour. I am not sure that I can add much more to what I already said in Committee or in subsequent meetings, but I will happily go round the track again to put the Government’s position on record.
HS2 enters into two types of agreements—confidentiality agreements and settlement agreements. Confidentiality agreements enable the exchange of information between HS2 and other individuals or organisations, including local councils and businesses. With such an agreement in place, HS2 Ltd can have open and frank conversations with the other party about a range of plans and proposals, some of which may not come off. These could include early considerations of different design options that, if made public, could cause unnecessary alarm and blight local properties.
Confidentiality agreements also enable those other parties to share information with HS2 Ltd without it being made public. These agreements are being made not because HS2 Ltd wants them, but because the other party does. For example, a small local business could share its accounts to determine the compensation available to it. This could not happen if confidentiality was not ensured.
As a number of noble Lords have noted, in the history of HS2 since 2011, 339 confidentiality agreements have been signed. Not all will have been required by HS2; some will have been required by the other contracting party. I know that some feel this is too many. I have to disagree. Thousands of landowners, businesses and councils are involved with the project, so I do not think this is disproportionate. I have the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, does not think it is disproportionate either.
Confidentiality agreements are not entered into with staff members at HS2 Ltd. There are confidentiality obligations within staff members’ employment contracts, but this is standard business practice, consistent with that in other public sector organisations.
Settlement agreements are a completely separate form of legal undertaking. They are entirely voluntary and include confidentiality provisions in line with the guidance set out by the Cabinet Office. These agreements can be signed only when an individual has taken independent legal counsel and fully understands their rights and obligations. Settlement agreements are entered into with a small minority of staff who are leaving HS2 to document mutual actions that avoid tribunal claims, or to keep private the sums involved in certain redundancies.
Neither confidentiality agreements nor settlement agreements can be used to gag those who wish to raise concerns about HS2. Whistleblowers are protected by law and none of HS2 Ltd’s business practices contravenes or frustrates this. HS2 Ltd has a whistleblowing procedure called Speak Out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, noted. This provides a route for staff, contractors and members of the public to raise concerns. The operator of this line is independent of HS2. Queries or concerns raised through this process are investigated by HS2 Ltd’s counterfraud and ethics team, and any necessary action is taken. Where necessary, suitable independent third parties will be brought in to investigate the issues raised. Updates are provided regularly to senior HS2 leaders, including non-executive directors, who act within the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
A number of noble Lords have noted that there may be one or two deficiencies in the amendment. It states that an independent third party should have control over how HS2 Ltd uses what it refers to as non-disclosure agreements—NDAs—which are those two previous agreements I spoke about. We do not feel that this is appropriate, necessary or, indeed, helpful. This issue was considered by the Secretary of State for Transport during the passage of this Bill in the other place, including whether it might be pertinent to appoint further observers or implement new complaints processes. The conclusion was that the use of these standard agreements should not be constrained by the imposition of a third party. There is simply no evidence that such an imposition is necessary or in the public interest.
If a party wishes to enter into a confidential agreement with HS2 Ltd, they should be free to do so. Indeed, they should also have the option for the very existence of that agreement to be private. I tried to follow the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, earlier, and I thank him for it, but I was a little confused. On the one hand, he said that he wanted an assessor for the public interest and to look at all the agreements that have happened in the past—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, is slightly problematic—but on the other hand he noted that the use of a third party should be voluntary between the two parties. I could not figure out how that would work or, certainly, what problem it would solve.
I do not believe that the amendment has merit but I recognise that transparency is important. HS2 Ltd already publishes the number of settlement agreements it has signed in its annual report. In addition, HS2 Ltd will begin reporting the cumulative number of confidentiality agreements it has signed in that same report. I believe that HS2 Ltd is using these agreements in the public interest, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his sterling efforts to help us poor lay men understand the complexity of the topic involved in these amendments. I have a rather unfashionable approach to experts; I tend to think that we should listen to them. On this occasion, I also urge the Government to do so.
Having reread the Minister’s response to the last debate on this, I did not gather from that a good, clear reason why the well-established practice is being abandoned. It is clear that the 1996 Act is well established and has worked well, and it seems strange to replace a consensual approach to a problem with an adversarial system. In my experience, adversarial systems always cost more in the end. They can also prove very unfair to those who do not have the nature or the money to embark on an adversarial fight, which can often last months and years, and who therefore decline to press their case when indeed they should be doing so. I urge the Minister to ensure that HS2 is approaching this in a sensible manner for the next phase of the development.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It seems that the 1996 Act covers these issues, and I am very suspicious of why HS2 needs such a significant change to the provisions of that Act for its project. I am not convinced that it needs these powers. I believe that, with modest alterations, good management should be able to overcome any problems. However, one faces the classic dilemma of a specialist area in an important Act, which is that I cannot know that I am right because we have not been able to listen to various points of view other than the expert knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and it is possible that the project needs these powers. As I understand it, there are likely to be few party walls in this phase of the project. He may be right that a dispute might significantly delay the project. Hence, I am unwilling at this stage to support the amendment if there is a Division.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, as I know the noble Earl is already aware, the Government cannot accept either amendment to the Bill. I will address the first amendment in this group and then move on to the second.
At the outset, I extend my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for the time and effort he has taken to work so constructively with department officials over the last few weeks. He has painstakingly explained his concerns both in writing and over the course of several meetings, as well as in the debate today. I am pleased that this work has been productive and that the first of these two amendments today recognises that we have moved on from the discussions in Grand Committee.
Schedule 23 to the Bill amends the operation of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996—which I too will call the 1996 Act—to enable the railway to be built as swiftly as possible. At the same time, Schedule 23 retains many of the protections for adjoining owners found in the 1996 Act. This schedule exists to reduce delay in construction due to any disputes which could otherwise arise if party wall matters were sorted out solely under the provisions of the 1996 Act. It also ensures the safety of the railway itself by providing for the railway to be constructed to the right engineering standards next to neighbouring properties. Lastly, it ensures that affected adjoining owners are afforded the protections and compensation due to them.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill
Lord Tunnicliffe ExcerptsMonday 30th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 View all High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 142-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (25 Nov 2020)
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, I must admire the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his persistence and consistency. As has already been noted, he is fundamentally opposed to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, already referred to the masterly summing up of the procedural situation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who chaired the committee on which I had the honour to sit. It was not just a matter of precedent, although, as a matter of precedence, it is for the House to examine as a separate entity, and not just as an issue buried inside one Bill, whether the current procedure is adjudged by noble Lords to be ideal and whether dealing with it as a matter buried inside one Bill is a proper way of addressing people’s concerns about the procedure, in so far as those concerns exist.
There was plenty of opportunity in the other place for the matters that are now being raised to be considered, and it was therefore not appropriate, under our existing procedure, for the second House to address those things. There is also a practical problem. If one introduces a further step, whether by additional provision or by a TWAO, fresh uncertainty is brought into the case. Landowners might well be affected by any change undertaken in that way, so, in fairness to them, you would have to go back and rehearse the arguments all over again.
I have dealt with only this one case of the HS2 Bill; nevertheless, I think that the procedure is perfectly sound, giving every opportunity for cases to be heard. My goodness, we should be proud as a Parliament that it is possible for people to bring their grievance or petition and have it heard in both Houses of Parliament. Through that process, there is plenty of opportunity for any glaring injustices to be dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the depot or railhead at Stone and the village of Woore. I am subject to correction on this, but I am not aware that, through our proceedings in the Select Committee, those who represented the interests regarding Stone made the suggestion that they should have the opportunity, by means of a TWAO, for further discussion of the route; nor do I recall any such suggestion from those who represented Woore. The committee visited Woore and saw the situation for itself. Therefore, quite honestly I cannot see that this amendment does anything other than contribute to the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to delay and possibly wreck what is, in my view, an important piece of legislation.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have tried to consider this amendment not as a debate over whether the route should go ahead, but on its merits. I found it difficult to understand, but it seemed that the essential objective was to allow petitioners to make further submissions—a second bite at the cherry, as it were.
Reading the committee’s report, I am content that the petitioners have been adequately dealt with. The point of contention is that applications relating to additional provisions should not be admitted. The case for not admitting additional provisions is set out in Appendix 2 of the Select Committee report, which gives details of the precedent set by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, when he was chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill. I will quote from the appendix, which contains a statement made by the chair of the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill. Paragraph 7 says:
“Those adversely affected by an additional provision ordered in the House of Lords as the second house would be denied that opportunity in the Commons as the first house unless the bill were to be returned to a Select Committee of the House of Commons with all the delays and additional expense that this would give rise to. As a matter of practical reality, almost every additional provision which solves or mitigates difficulties for one group of residents along the line raises new difficulties for another group. That is why petitions against additional provisions are permitted and why parliamentary practice regards it as unfair for additional provisions to be introduced in the House of Lords as the second house.”
The statement goes on to say that the committee considered the applicability of a Transport and Works Act order and came to the conclusion that it was highly related to the concept of additional provisions and that it should not be admitted.
We support the current parliamentary practice and, if my noble friend Lord Berkeley were to seek to divide the House, he would not receive support from our Benches. I would have hoped that what might come out of this would be some reflection by the Government and the House to make the procedures and customs of the House on hybrid Bills clearer. Nevertheless, we think that they are clear enough to reject this amendment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate—an hors d’oeuvre to the main course yet to come. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and other noble Lords are aware, the Bill has already been carefully scrutinised by a Select Committee of this House. That committee was convened under the rules for private and hybrid Bills and was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, to whom we are very grateful and who unfortunately cannot be with us today.
In its report, the Select Committee discussed whether such a committee can make an amendment to the Bill that extends the powers of the promoter—in this case, HS2 Ltd—such as powers to compulsorily acquire land. Such an amendment to a private Bill is known as an additional provision. The Select Committee report states:
“As a matter of practical reality, almost every additional provision which solves or mitigates difficulties for one group of residents along the line raises new difficulties for another group.”
The Select Committee therefore concluded that amendments that extend powers would not be appropriate.
Those adversely affected by an additional provision in the first House have the opportunity to petition against it in that House and in the second House. As both HS2 Select Committees in this House—for this Bill and for phase 1—have noted, it would not be fair to allow amendments in the second House, unless those affected by it could also petition in both Houses. The consequence of this, however, would be that hybrid Bills would be for ever doomed to travel from a Select Committee in one House to another Select Committee in the other and back again in never-ending ping-pong.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, acknowledged all that in Grand Committee, yet here we have an amendment to send the Bill off to another but different type of Select Committee. This proposed Select Committee would have no powers at all to amend the Bill and the process would cause many months of delay to the Bill and create even more uncertainty for residents and businesses along the proposed route. At some point this must stop, a line must be drawn and a decision taken about the construction of this railway. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I raised in Committee the issue of burial grounds and monuments, and the way in which they are dealt with. I made it clear that mine was a probing amendment, and that my interest was in ensuring that there was encouragement for really good practice in this context. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has taken the opportunity to take the issue further, because undoubtedly the modern, environmentally friendly, way of creating a memorial frequently includes trees. I shall listen carefully to the reassurances that I hope the Minister will be able to give us.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have little to say on these amendments, other than to make a general comment on the subject of burial grounds and so on. It seems to me that the intent in HS2 Phase 2a Information Paper: Burial grounds is appropriate. There are some useful words about how things should go ahead, and it says:
“Any human remains affected by the Proposed Scheme will be treated with all due dignity, respect and care.”
As ever, with the relationships between HS2 and the wider community, the whole issue is a cultural one. If, working within these guidelines, HS2 is constantly positive in seeking solutions, there will be no problems. But if it hides behind officialdom, there may be problems. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some indication of how the Government will hold HS2 to account with regard to the tone and culture of the relationship between it, the wider public and, in particular, the representatives of the public in this sensitive area.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, in no other setting is it more important that HS2 works be undertaken with dignity, care and respect than when they impact human remains and monuments to the deceased. The works authorised by this Bill do not directly impact any known burial grounds or monuments. However, given that the construction of the scheme requires ground excavation, there is potential for human remains and associated monuments to be discovered. Such discoveries are most likely to be made as a result of archaeological investigation works. In such an event, Clause 23 and Schedule 20 provide for an appropriate process for carrying out the works required.
Amendment 2, moved by my noble friend Lord Randall, would remove the process in Clause 22 and Schedule 20 for burials that have been made less than one year before work commences. I state again that the phase 2a scheme, which we are considering today, does not impact any known burial grounds. It is highly unlikely that these works will impact any burial made under one year prior to their commencement. In any event, I believe that Clause 22, which applies to all burials, including those less than one year old, is appropriate. Therefore, I do not believe that my noble friend’s amendment is necessary.
The process set out in the Bill is founded on existing UK burial legislation, and ecclesiastical law and practice. The procedure in place to ensure compliance was discussed and agreed with the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England and Historic England. I must therefore resist my noble friend’s amendment.
Amendment 3, also in my noble friend’s name, would expand the scope of monuments and memorials to include trees. This would give such a memorial wood, or individual trees planted in memory of an individual, the same standing in legislation as, for instance, gravestones and war memorials.
It would be very difficult for any legislation to recognise such cases. In the UK there is no official record-keeping for memorial trees, and the Bill contains no controls for the designation of any trees as memorial trees. Furthermore, as there is no definition of a memorial tree, such a provision could, as I think my noble friend noted, be abused by individuals to hinder and delay construction works. Clearly, this would not be desirable. But we absolutely do agree that HS2 Ltd and its contractors must fully engage with those who may be impacted, sensitively and with due care. I know that my colleague, Minister Andrew Stephenson, will ensure that it is fully held to account in that regard.
As for the memorial woodland mentioned by my noble friend Lord Randall, I am aware of the case. As he knows, because we have corresponded about it, HS2 Ltd is supporting the hospice and the affected families, and will have discussions with the hospice and the landowner about creating a suitable memorial in this location once the works have concluded. Of course there will be lessons to be learned from this case, and from certain other cases. There are always lessons to be learned, and ways in which things could have been handled better. Minister Andrew Stephenson will ensure that those are carried across the phases of HS2. I sympathise with the intention to amend the Bill, but in terms of legislative proposals to address such issues, these proposals would not do the trick.
Finally, on Amendments 14 and 15, the Government are clear that due notice should be provided for any HS2 works impacting human remains or monuments to the deceased. There is a notice procedure already provided in the Bill for such works. It includes an eight-week period for next of kin to apply to remove human remains or monuments at the expense of HS2 Ltd. Prior to this notification procedure occurring, the programme of land acquisition will already have commenced. This requires notification to the owners of the land and all those with an interest in it. It would be highly unlikely that anybody with a private burial or associated monument on their land would not know what was to occur; they would know about the work well in advance.
I am sure my noble friend agrees that including a requirement to notify the next of kin “if possible” would not be workable. It would be incredibly difficult to determine what is or is not possible in notifying the next of kin. However, HS2 should be, and is, proactive in attempting to contact known next of kin, and places notices in local newspapers and at the site of burial. I understand the aims of my noble friend and reassure him that, where this process is in force for known burial grounds on phase 1 of HS2, it is working well.
Similarly, requiring notification to be given six months in advance of the works would also not be practical. Where burial grounds are identified, early notice is practical and possible. However, there are no burial grounds on phase 2a, and requiring works to cease for a mandatory six months would risk unnecessary delays in the construction programme and bringing into operation of phase 2a.
I must resist these amendments. I am aware of a couple of points of detail that my noble friend raised, so I will write to him. In resisting, I recognise the importance of this issue, the interest that has been shown across your Lordships’ House in what happens to both human remains and monuments, and the importance of memorial trees and other places special to friends and family. We will make sure that HS2 does whatever it can to make sure they are treated sensitively and with respect. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill
Lord Tunnicliffe ExcerptsThursday 12th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 View all High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 142-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (9 Nov 2020)
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will not take long, but I want to say simply that when a noble Lord raises an issue of this complexity and technical detail, it deserves to be taken very seriously. While I fully realise that the issue is not really appropriate for debate in Grand Committee because it is much too technical and detailed to encompass within the form of our debates, that does not mean that it is not important. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make sure that when she has had her meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the issues concerned she will set out in some form the outcome of those discussions in a letter to all noble Lords who are participating in this part of the debate today.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I can only agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, because I too would value a letter that gives some explanation. I have always been rather curious about party walls when looking at buildings, and I have often wondered how the issues are sorted out. I am absolutely delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and no doubt his colleagues at the time, created the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. How to overcome all the conflicting desires of the parties concerned seems to be quite a difficult concept. That legislation has lasted for 24 years and, given the number of party walls you see every day as you move around cities, it must work pretty well.
Surely the essence of taking this forward to this particular application should be to maintain the philosophy of the Act by working with what it says and making the minimum number of modifications and certainly not making modifications that would change the philosophy behind the Act and the fairness that has obviously been worked into it for it to have worked so well.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill
Lord Tunnicliffe ExcerptsMonday 9th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 View all High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 142-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (9 Nov 2020)
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the principle behind this amendment. We need a clear statement from the Government endorsing the full HS2 project. Anything less would fundamentally undermine the economic and social case for HS2.
Building only phase 1, from London to Birmingham, would simply make Birmingham a suburb of London, bringing it within the commuter belt. Building only phase 2a would destroy much of the economic case for high-speed rail, because only the more southerly parts of the western route would benefit from the regenerative impact of HS2, and the possibilities for improving local rail connectivity in the Midlands and the north would be much diminished. Put all this together and HS2 becomes much more questionable as an investment.
Sums that seemed eye-watering only nine months ago seem rather less daunting now that we have experienced in recent months the short-term government expenditure necessary to save us from catastrophe. But the pandemic has proved that we now need to invest for a greener future and a more sustainable way of living, and HS2 is a vital part of that.
Reference has been made in this debate to a recent lack of passengers on the railways and other impacts of the coronavirus. We are going to move on from this; there will be a time when people get back on to the railways, and the buses. It is important that the Government encourage people to do that. Therefore, HS2 and its progress need to be part of that picture.
Nevertheless, we still have to ensure value for money, which you do not get if you abandon the full concept of HS2 in the name of cost-cutting. Instead, you destroy the economic case and undermine the environmental benefits, because you are not producing a high-speed railway that is able to compete with internal flights and long-distance car journeys. HS2 will provide additional capacity, taking long-distance passengers off existing lines and leaving spare capacity for more freight and for shorter journeys and commuter trips.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, raises the key issue of continuity. Building a railway is rather like having a mobile factory. The equipment and the skills move along the line with you as you build. Pause the process and the skilled workers disappear to other jobs and the equipment is repurposed, sold off and so on. Getting it all together again costs a lot more than just moving seamlessly on.
Behind this are the lessons of the electrification of the Great Western line, which reveal that message clearly. Expensive mistakes were made in the early stages because it was so long since any electrification of the railways had been done in UK that the expertise had to be built up from scratch. Further projects will inevitably be more cost-efficient, because the expertise, materials and equipment are all available now.
HS2 is, of course, already running well behind the original schedule, so there is a need to build it as quickly as possible. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, addresses that issue in its intention. There is already talk that phase 2b might not be complete until 2040. That is totally unacceptable. The north-east, and the north beyond Crewe in the west, need regeneration now. HS2 is a large piece of the jigsaw of initiatives that are needed.
On 7 October, the Government announced a consultation on several aspects of phase 2b. That closes on 11 December. Can the Minister tell us when the results of that consultation are likely to be made public and what she thinks will be the timescale for the Government’s decisions on it?
We can already see the regenerative impact of HS2 in Birmingham, and shovels are hardly in the ground. The north-east leg via Nottingham to Leeds, and the further part of the western leg to Manchester, need the certainty of the Government’s unequivocal commitment to the whole of HS2 now. I will listen to the tone of the Minister’s response with great interest.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in general, we view the amendment favourably. It seems to have two points to it. The first is to try to secure some continuity, as spelled out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The concept of continuity in railway construction is a sound one. Unfortunately, it is a sound principle that we tend not to keep to. The key part of the amendment seems to be the question of whether Her Majesty’s Government will commit to building HS2 phase 2b to Leeds in full. For the avoidance of doubt, Labour’s answer is that we fully support the HS2 concept and the concept that phase 2b should be built to Leeds in full.
I think we already know what the Minister will say. Andrew Stephenson was asked this question in the other place on 22 October. He said that
“when the Prime Minister gave the go-ahead to HS2 in February this year, he said that we were committed to delivering phase 2b but how phase 2b was delivered would be subject to the integrated rail plan. We have been making significant progress with the integrated rail plan. Sir John Armitt and the National Infrastructure Commission have already published their interim report. We look forward to their further recommendations and to responding to them before Christmas.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/20; col. 1213.]
That caused me to look up the interim report, since it seems central to how the question posed in the amendment will be answered. When I found it and skimmed through it, I came up with two questions. The first is very simple: when will the final report on this issue be published? The interim report promises that it will be published in November. It should be noted that Andrew Stephenson said that it would be published by Christmas. If it were published in November, it might be available before we get to Report, which would be extremely useful. When does the Minister expect the report to be published and when does she expect the Government’s response?
The other perhaps disturbing feature of the interim report is the commitment to a very different methodology from that used in the past. Essentially, what is said about a plan depends on the methodology and assumptions in the analysis that answers the question, to what extent and to what standard should the railway be built? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the methodology and assumptions will produce an answer no less favourable to the Leeds branch than those used in HS2? Put another way, if the criteria used in the original HS2 decision would say yes to Leeds but the new criteria say no, surely, this cannot be levelling up. I have seen precious few examples of levelling up, and a failure to build HS2 phase 2b to Leeds—indeed, a failure to build HS2 in full—surely is a statement that the commitment to levelling up is meaningless.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for tabling the amendment and all noble Lords who have taken part in this first debate in Committee on the HS2 phase 2a Bill. Before I go any further, on behalf of the Government, I extend my sincere thanks to the Select Committee. I am particularly grateful that its members agreed to undertake hearings for petitioners virtually. That was the first time this had been done and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the other committee members did an incredible job in the most challenging of circumstances. Where petitioners chose to appear in person, the committee undertook hearings in a hybrid fashion and handled all the different ways of working with ease. I therefore put on record my thanks, and those of the Secretary of State and the Government as a whole, for its work and ensuring that we maintained momentum on this incredibly important Bill.
Turning, then, to the debate on this first amendment, I note that many noble Lords know what I will say. I hope I will not disappoint and that I will get my words right. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is a great and very knowledgeable advocate for HS2 and I thank him for his continuing support for and dedication to getting the railway built, and for setting out so passionately his reasoning. Despite my appreciation for the noble Lord’s tenacity, I do not see that the amendment is needed. I also feel that potentially, it is very unhelpful.
There is simply no benefit or technical justification for making the progress of work on this section of railway—a very short one of just 36 miles, going from the West Midlands to Crewe, also known as phase 2a —contingent on the deposit of a Bill for the eastern leg of phase 2b. While the Bill is part of a much bigger project, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, the amendment would delay works on phase 2a by a significant period, given the scale and complexity of hybrid Bills and the time needed for their preparation.
All being well, if we can get this Bill through your Lordships’ House, we expect work to commence in the early part of next year. It will not surprise noble Lords to hear that there is a window in the early part of next year in which the work needs to start; much of it is environmental work that is sometimes limited by the time of year in which it can take place. We do not want anything to delay the passage of the Bill and, therefore, the start of the works for phase 2a. Secondly, those works are intrinsically linked to work going on in phase 1. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, noted, continuity is really important. The two works will eventually proceed alongside one another. Therefore, it would be better to get the Bill through.
We have come a long way in the last 12 months or so since Second Reading. We had the Oakervee review, in which Douglas Oakervee said that the whole of HS2 should go ahead, but that the Bills for phase 2b —there will be Bills, not a single Bill—should not be introduced to Parliament before the publication of the integrated rail plan, which, as noble Lords will have heard me say before, is due to be published by the end of the year. Delaying the beginning of works on phase 2a until an eastern leg Bill has been deposited in Parliament would serve only to delay the phase 2a works and the benefits of HS2 reaching the north and the Midlands.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has just said. I would just add one point. Crossrail has considerable experience of burial sites and monuments and is generally acknowledged to have dealt with them sensitively and to have made a significant contribution to the archaeological history of Britain. In respect of dealing properly with human remains, it has been extremely sensitive at every stage and has arranged for reburial as appropriate. I would have thought that the Crossrail experience offers a good example to HS2.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I generally support this amendment, which is really about tone.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Adonis have touched on the question of the treatment of any burial sites and monuments that we come across. I felt sure that there was something, somewhere that requires HS2 to show some respect in this regard. My research shows that an information paper on burial grounds was published on 15 February 2019 for the Bill before us. Paragraph 3.1 states:
“Any human remains affected by the Proposed Scheme will be treated with all due dignity, respect and care. Any impact caused by works to construct the Proposed Scheme on human remains and associated monuments is an emotive and complex matter and HS2 Ltd and the Promoter recognise their duty to address the concerns of individuals and communities.”
The essence of that assurance is that any remains should be treated with
“all due dignity, respect and care.”
Had that been carried into the Bill, perhaps through some wording in the Explanatory Notes, one would feel that this would be handled sensitively. During the works for the Jubilee Line extension we did end up building through burial sites, and we were sensitive to how that was managed. I think that we caused no offence as a result.
Unfortunately, no reference is made to “dignity, respect and care” in the rest of that document. Nowhere in Schedule 20 is there any sense of that, nor is it set out in the Explanatory Notes. I hope that the Minister will find some way of assuring the Committee that those key cultural attitudes to burial sites will be carried through in the execution of the project.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for tabling this important amendment. As she will be aware, I wrote to her on this matter at the end of last week and I have shared that letter with other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. When I am not taking HS2 Bills through the Lords, I am the roads Minister and am well aware that one can make finds at any point in the construction process. Highways England has very good systems to deal with this, and I am very pleased to be able to tell noble Lords that HS2 does, too.
However, it is worth pointing out that no gravestones, monuments, burial grounds or human remains have so far been identified along the phase 2a route. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned that they had not come across this issue in the Select Committee, and that is why we do not expect to make such finds. However, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that does not mean that such artefacts will not be there. Human remains and monuments are often discovered during construction and if this happens, requirements are already in place for HS2. They are set out in great detail in the Heritage Memorandum, which is one of the Environmental Minimum Requirements. There is also the phase 2a burial grounds, human remains and monuments procedure. These documents ensure that the right approach is taken—one very much in line with that set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I say simply that I accept entirely the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I agree that the procedure is cumbersome and expensive and I would be very pleased to see some reforms brought forward in due course, but I am sorry, I cannot agree with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have to admit that I barely understand this debate. I did my best to research it and it seemed to be about giving the promoter considerable flexibility to exercise powers under the TWA procedure to create opportunities for activity on land that might be outside the Bill, as well as other rights to do things. I am sure the Minister, briefed by her excellent team, fully understands what this is all about and I will be very grateful if she explains it to me, ideally in words of one syllable.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thought that the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Liddle, did a very good job of making many of my points for me. Then, of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, came in and did a proper job on the matter in hand. I will play this with a straight bat and read out what I have here, which I thought I understood when I read it through over the weekend. I hope this will be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. It was certainly helpful to me. When I got to the end of it I thought, “Right, I get this,” so here we go.
It is normal practice on major infrastructure projects such as HS2 or Crossrail that, during construction, further planning consent needs to be sought for details of the scheme that were not anticipated when it passed through Parliament. One of the means for doing this in relation to railway works is an order made under the Transport and Works Act 1992, known as a Transport and Works Act order.
During its construction, Crossrail has had three such orders, addressing changes in station design at Whitechapel, stabling arrangements at Plumstead and connections between platforms at Paddington, all of which arose from continuing discussions on the design and operation of the railway after the Crossrail Bill was enacted. Phase 1 of HS2 has had one Transport and Works Act order so far, in that case for new sidings near Calvert Green for use by a waste-to-energy facility. This was to honour an assurance given to the operator of the facility during the passage of the phase 1 Bill. The facility could not be included in the scheme because of the time needed to develop the proposals, which would have unduly delayed progress. As we build phase 1, it may be found that there is a need for more orders.
I will mention briefly the process that such a Transport and Works Act order goes through. The application for the order is submitted to the relevant Secretary of State—in England that would be the Transport Secretary and in Wales it would be the Welsh Government. The applicant must then make the application public by publishing notices in local newspapers, by writing to people directly affected, by posting notices near the works and by notifying specified organisations. If the scheme is large, the applicant may be required to hold public information events. It is clear that such orders go through a large amount of consultation.
People who wish to object then have six weeks to notify the relevant decision-maker of their objections. If there are many objections or if there are statutory objectors—those who are considered directly affected because their land is being bought compulsorily, for example—there may be a public inquiry. A recommendation on the application for the order will then be made to the Secretary of State, who will ultimately make the decision as to whether it should be approved. There may also be a need for the applicant to apply separately for planning permission, but that is another process.
If an application for a Transport and Works Act order were to be made in relation to phase 2a of the railway, Clause 49 would allow such an order to adopt, as necessary, any provision of the Bill so that the works were constructed within the same legal and planning framework as the rest of the scheme. Further, Schedule 1 to the Bill allows any engineering work shown on the plans and sections that were submitted alongside the Bill to be substituted by a work not so shown. Any such work would still be bound by the environmental minimum requirements of the scheme. What this amendment seeks is already addressed in the Bill.
However, we know that the amendment is not entirely about that. I know that the hybrid Bill process in this House can be a little frustrating. As I said to the noble Lord when discussing his amendment with him last week and as I will repeat now, it is accepted practice on the basis of fairness that, as the second House to consider the Bill, it cannot make amendments that would extend the powers in it; for example, to acquire new rights over land to change the route. This practice was confirmed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, as chair of the Select Committee that considered this Bill and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, who chaired the Select Committee that considered the phase 1 Bill in 2016. The Select Committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, also considered the suggestion that instructing the promoter to make an amendment to the scheme through a Transport and Works Act order would provide a valid alternative to taking powers in the Bill. The committee did not take this view.
I agree that this is the right approach. Such a committee directing the outcome of an application for a Transport and Works Act order without the formal application being made and therefore without any such change going through the process I described would be unfair. It would take away the opportunity for those who wished to object to have their concerns heard.
I agree with the conclusions of both committee chairs. It is right that if a Transport and Works Act order was necessary, any such order should be entirely outside the scope of the Bill, but I would add that any such order, being associated with phase 2a of HS2, should attract the environmental protections that this scheme offers. The amendment would do nothing to change the ability of the nominated undertaker to use a Transport and Works Act order to amend the scheme; nor would its use in a future HS2 Bill allow the Select Committee in the second House to adopt a different approach. The Bill makes sure this is the case. I trust that this fully explains the stance that the Government take on this matter.
However, I am given to understand that the House authorities are considering a further consultation on the hybrid Bill process in the near future. If the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has an issue with that process, he may wish to participate in those discussions—I am sure that his input would be welcome. As such, I wonder whether he might withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We will come to you after the Minister. If you were ready then to make a short speech, I think that would be in order. I call the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the position that we take on HS2 is unambiguously to support it, therefore I am not seeking to find devices to slow it down or otherwise damage its future. However, I recognise two things. Speaking first to Amendment 4, I note that the Government have gone some way towards the aim of that amendment by promising six-monthly reports. Indeed, the first one was published on 13 October in the form of a Written Ministerial Statement, as far as I understand it. If the department and the Minister were to look upon this debate positively, there could possibly be a meeting of minds, ideally before Report, on the contents of those reports so that the many sensible concerns expressed in this debate could be met.
On the environment, towards the end of the report it says:
“In the coming months, HS2 Ltd will establish a new Environmental Sustainability Committee (as a sub-committee of the HS2 Ltd board), let by its Chair Allan Cook. This committee will be charged with strengthening Environmental Sustainability Reporting including the development and publication of an Environmental Sustainability Report. HS2 intends to publish the first report next year.”
Perhaps the Minister might know of this report and be able to tell us when it will be published.
The discussion on ancient woodlands—I have to be honest—was merely the Labour Front Bench doing its duty and making sure that all issues were fully debated. I will not repeat the briefings that I have had from the Woodland Trust and others, because they have already been employed in the arguments so far. I urge the Government to listen to this debate and, once again, to enter discussions with Members of this Committee who have spoken so passionately on it to see whether the need for regular reporting can be merged with the particular and important needs of ancient woodland.
On the issue of the periodicity of reporting, the divide between one amendment calling for three months and the other amendment calling for one year could probably be crossed by a merger of the two. We settled on six-monthly reports, but with a wider range of issues, particularly involving ancient woodlands. I hope that the Minister will be able to achieve through discussion some consensus on these two issues, because while I recognise that speakers in this debate are, to some extent, coming from different directions, the generality of their contributions tends to be to the common ground of a report covering a wider range of facts.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I call the next speaker, Baroness Vere of Norbiton.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, with his great expertise, has made a detailed case for these amendments, so I will speak briefly. I want particularly to talk about Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to which I have added my name.
Some elements of the compensation schemes devised for HS2 are relatively generous and go well beyond the statutory minimum, but the noble Earl has set out a series of concerns about how those schemes are applied. Even if everything happens perfectly, it is right to say that it is an emotional and difficult time for many people affected by a project such as this. I want to address in particular my concerns about tenants. Some categories of tenancy are adequately covered, but the committee’s report has drawn our attention to the apparent lack of progress in dealing with an issue that was originally raised in the Select Committee of the House of Commons. Tenants with shorthold assured periodic tenancies, some agricultural tenancies and tenancies for narrowboats all appear to have no rights to compensation—not even to a home loss payment. Once again, those in society who are the least well off and the least likely to have adequate resources are given the least consideration. I call on the Minister to provide a better answer than the one that the Secretary of State was able to give in the other place, and to provide us with information and reassurance that all tenants will be properly compensated and dealt with.
The report also draws our attention to two special cases where it is envisaged that homeowners could lose out badly. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those and said whether, in future, such people will be covered.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. My amendment was tabled to make sure that these important issues are fully debated. I have been rewarded, in the sense that we have had a debate to which people with a great deal of knowledge and experience have contributed.
When I headed up a large publicly owned enterprise, I faced the obligation of how you pay compensation. You are a guardian of the public purse, but nevertheless you want to be fair in an exemplary way, and that implies being on the generous end of the margins that the regulations and/or the law permit. Generally speaking we got that right, and generally speaking we were able to justify the generosity of some of our settlements by the fact that they went through smoothly with little litigation and no loss of public image.
What seems to be true here is the need for consideration of the whole framework. While the position with freeholders may be satisfactory, tenants in general in this area do not get a fair deal. I hope that the Minister will be willing to go beyond saying, “Well, this is what the regulations say,” to a recognition of the widespread feeling that, one way or another, tenants are particularly hurt by the present situation.
I have had a briefing from the National Farmers’ Union, which has already been repeated, and there seems to be a particular problem with agricultural tenancies. You can see the tremendous importance of security of tenure when it comes to farming. Indeed, as far as I can see from the briefings I have received, tenures were much more secure in the past but have become less so, and the compulsory purchase regulations do not in any way reflect the real impact that compulsory purchase can have on the ability of farmers to carry on trading and, if necessary, move farms in order to continue doing so. The whole value of the investment that they make in the land does not seem to be in any way represented in the compensation.
So I am very pleased for the support for my amendment. I agree in some ways with my noble friend Lord Adonis about the need to get this right. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that there is genuine concern in this area, promise to take this issue away and perhaps, once again, have some meetings before Report to see if we can have a meeting of minds.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very good and occasionally somewhat detailed debate; I will certainly be doing a follow-up letter when we have finished.
I want to say at the outset that while I agree that HS2 must always strive to improve, I do not recognise the claims by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, of coercion in dealing with members of the public. If someone has evidence of coercion then we would very much like to hear about it so that we can deal with it properly, but we cannot do anything with unsubstantiated accusations and anecdotes.
I turn first to compensation for tenants, a subject covered previously at Second Reading. As I said then, most types of tenants are already provided for under the existing compensation law where they are impacted by the scheme. Where they are not provided for, the Government are able to use flexible, non-statutory arrangements to provide support. The Government have also committed to taking forward appropriate measures where the law is silent in discussions with stakeholders and residents if it is necessary to do so.
Matters of tenant compensation are complex because they depend on a person’s individual tenancy arrangements, and any compensation must balance the rights of the tenant with fairness to the taxpayer. It should, of course, be executed in a sensitive manner; I think all noble Lords would agree with that.
Brexit: Road, Rail and Maritime Transport (EUC Report)
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Whitty for introducing the report. It seems surprisingly fresh despite the fact that it is 16 months old. It is fresh because virtually all the questions it asks have not been answered. That is to a large extent echoed by many participants in today’s debate. With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who has a degree of heroic optimism, which I hope comes to pass, but I doubt it will, most participants have noted a number of questions left outstanding. The exception to this, to some extent, is the questions and important issues brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. After her, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, hit the nail on the head by saying that there is very little difference between where we were 16 months ago and where we are now, except that now we have so little time.
The report before the Committee demonstrates, above all, that the UK needs to get on and deliver a Brexit deal or risk a multitude of issues for UK-EU surface transport. The implications for road alone, detailed in this report, are enormous. The uncertainty over UK-EU market access for hauliers benefits nobody, and sadly still remains, 16 months after the report was published.
Of course, the concerns noted in the report are held not only by the committee. Earlier this month, road hauliers warned that the Government are “sleepwalking into a disaster” over their border plans for the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December. Groups representing truckers have written to Ministers warning of “severe” disruption to supply chains. Rod McKenzie, from the Road Haulage Association, said the Government should
“act now before it’s too late.”
He told BBC News:
“It is a real case of the government sleepwalking to a disaster with the border preparations that we have, whether it is a deal or no-deal Brexit at the end of December.
The supply chain on which we are all dependent to get the things we need could be disrupted and there is a lack of government focus and action on this…
When we are trying to emerge from the crisis of Covid, if we then plunge straight into a Brexit-related crisis, that will be a really difficult moment and we need real pace.
The difference here is between a disaster area and a disaster area with rocket boosters on.”
Subsequently the group held a meeting with Ministers. The Road Haulage Association described its meeting with Michael Gove about post-Brexit arrangements as a “washout”. The body said there had been no clarity from the senior Minister on how border checks will operate when the transition period ends after December. The Road Haulage Association chief executive Richard Burnett said that it,
“fell far short of our expectations.”
He went on:
“The mutually effective co-operation we wanted to ensure seamless border crossings just didn't happen and there is still no clarity over the questions that we have raised.”
Since the publication of the report, fresh concerns have emerged from the industry over the preparedness of customs agents, IT systems and physical infrastructure. Can the Minister detail what steps the Government are taking in response to these issues? Can she spell out in detail how the road haulage industry will operate from the beginning of January in the event of no deal? The report specifically called on the Government to work closely with the road haulage industry and, based on a number of recent comments by the industry, it seems unlikely that this is ongoing.
Unfortunately, the issues with the Government’s policy for road transport are not restricted to haulage. Bus and coach travel remains a popular mode of transport between the UK and Europe, and the report notes the importance of the Interbus agreement to allow this. Can the Minister confirm whether the ratification of the Interbus agreement and its protocol is still expected by the end of the transition period?
On personal drivers, although the point in the report relating to the mutual recognition of driving licences was agreed for the transition period, what is the situation from 1 January? Can the Minister detail what steps the Government have taken to communicate with drivers to ensure that there is clarity about whether they need an international driving permit?
On rail meanwhile, many of the issues in the report remain outstanding. The report makes clear, in particular, that the Government’s decision to leave the European Union Agency for Railways is fraught with issues. Can the Minister confirm why the Government did not pursue the option of associate membership? On the Channel Tunnel—which, as the report notes, plays a pivotal role in UK-EU trade—it appears there are still issues relating to its continued operation which remain unsolved. Last week, the European Council noted France’s intention to renegotiate aspects of the treaty of Canterbury, which was signed with the UK in 1986. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s position on potential negotiations?
With only months to go until the end of the transition period, it could be expected that the Government would be prepared for all eventualities, but many questions remain unanswered. Can the Minister confirm what engagement is taking place with rail stakeholders and, specifically, what advice is being offered for the possibility of leaving the transition period without a deal?
Recently, the European Commission advised rail stakeholders to ensure establishment in the EU, authorisation by the European Union Agency for Railways and certification by EU-based notified bodies and designated bodies. Can the Minister confirm where such similar advice has been issued by the UK Government?
Maritime is another area fraught with uncertainty. The UK is in the fortunate position where maritime transport is dealt with mostly by international law, providing for access to ports in any situation. However, questions remain over the future of areas such as roll-on roll-off ports. Can the Minister provide an update on recent negotiations in this regard? In anticipating potential disruption to services, can the Minister detail what measures are being implemented to ensure that shipping routes remain open?
At a time of enormous uncertainty, the transport industry needs competence and consensus so that the country can move on and recover. We are in the middle of a public health emergency and an economic crisis, yet Ministers are instead preoccupied with the task of preparing for a cliff edge. I hope that the Minister can at least provide assurances on the issues that noble Lords have raised today and assure the Committee that the Government will do everything in their power to get on and deliver a Brexit deal.
International Travel
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the announcement that the Government can now implement quarantine policies for passengers from specific islands, rather than whole countries, begs one question above all others: why only now? The Government’s quarantine policy has been beset by the same question from the outset. We are still yet to hear why they introduced quarantine only in June, after 22 million people had come into the country. For months, even when the virus was at its peak, millions entered the UK without any restrictions or any contact tracing system in place. Even today, we remain in the dark as to whether it is operating as it should be. Can the Minister detail how many calls contact tracing services have made in relation to positive cases linked to flights over the last month? How many fines have been handed out for non-compliance with quarantine rules? And how many people have had a positive Covid-19 test result after returning from overseas travel?
The general policy of air bridges has the support of these Benches, but it can only be as one part of the strategy to prevent infections in the UK. There is not an individual intervention that will suffice, and only a combination of smart, targeted measures will do. The shadow Secretary of State for Transport has repeatedly called for a review of the broader quarantine policy to report as soon as possible. This must consider options for a robust testing regime in airports and related follow-up tests that could safely minimise the need for 14-day quarantine. Until this takes place, it is clear that the Government are not doing all in their ability to beat the virus and safely reopen society, while protecting jobs and the economy. At the very least, it would be helpful to understand whether these policies are even under active consideration. In this regard, can the Minister confirm when SAGE last discussed airport testing, and what is the latest update on the SAGE paper on airport testing?
With the announcement of the islands policy, the Government have also placed a series of Greek locations on the quarantine list. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will publish the evidence and criteria by which locations are included on the quarantine list? With regard to the wider list, can the Minister explain how the UK Government have arrived at a different conclusion from those of the Welsh and Scottish Governments in relation to Portugal?
At a time when the aviation sector is struggling, perhaps more than any other, it would be remiss of me to not mention the impact of government policy on the industry. Can the Minister detail what assessment she has made of the financial implications of the travel quarantine measures on the aviation sector? In recent months, we have seen airlines time and time again announce plans to make significant percentages of their workforces redundant. The pain felt as a result will not be limited to those directly impacted. The consequences for the wider supply chain will no doubt cost further jobs. Poorly handled quarantine policy has only made matters worse for the 1.5 million workers across the supply chain, while the unwillingness of the Government to announce a sector deal suggests indifference.
There must be a sector deal to save airlines and support airports, and this must be based on Labour’s six conditions: it must save jobs, tackle climate change, not condone tax avoidance, not condone dividends at the expense of business viability, support UK suppliers and support consumer rights. The industry is waiting. It is now almost six months since the Chancellor first promised an aviation sector-specific deal in mid-March. Just as the quarantine policy has taken many months to emerge, the response to the aviation industry is taking even longer. Can the Minister finally confirm when the Government are going to give a financial support package to the aviation sector as the Chancellor promised in March?
Regrettably, the Statement fails to answer many more questions than it addresses. It is vital that the Government get to grips with the situation, and this can be done only with a comprehensive review of the quarantine policy as soon as possible. At this crucial point in the pandemic, it is beyond belief that there has still been no real consideration for a proper testing regime at airports and related follow-up tests. Passengers and the aviation industry need confidence that Ministers are not simply making it up as they go along. They will not have received that from today’s Statement.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to see this small step forward towards a more logical approach to quarantine. I am particularly pleased that the Government are looking at testing combined with shorter quarantine, although news of problems with the Test and Trace system does not convince me that it will be introduced effectively and soon. However, I hope we are seeing the signals of a less chaotic approach from the Government and fewer U-turns, because we are still suffering, as a nation, from the Government’s inexplicable decision to abandon testing and quarantine for returning travellers back in March, which meant that tens of thousands of people entered the UK unchecked from areas which had higher infection rates. Clearly, many of them brought their infections with them.
My first question to the Minister relates to the reference in the Statement to FCO advice. Can the Minister explain why there would ever be different quarantine advice from the FCO and DfT? I realise there was at one point, but that was put right within 24 hours or so. I am asking this question because there are clearly insurance implications for travellers if there are two conflicting sets of advice from the Government.
There is nothing in the Statement about the timescales between the regular quarantine announcements, which usually are made on Thursday—although one was made on Monday this week—and the imposition of quarantine, which is normally at 4 am on a Saturday. Would it not be possible to extend this period to give travellers abroad longer to pack their bags, buy a new ticket and make their way back to the UK? Most travel, certainly holiday travel, tends to be from weekend to weekend. If the Government were to act slightly sooner, it would give people longer. If you think back to the situation in France, which is a country many people drive to on holidays, many people who were in the south of France found it physically impossible to get back to the UK, even if they could get a ticket for a ferry or the tunnel. They could not drive back through France safely to get to the UK before the quarantine was imposed. The tight timescale has done a lot to add to the overall nervousness about foreign travel.
Finally, I want to talk about the situation in aviation as a whole, which, as a sector, is struggling. Airports, in particular, are struggling and time is running out for some of our smaller airports. They do not have major foreign backers, like some airlines. Some are local authority-owned. Many are owned, in effect, by pension funds. You can mothball planes but you cannot mothball airports. For safety reasons, they have to maintain many staff and many of their operations, even when they have few paying customers. For instance, they must have all the experts on site to be able to host emergency flights and landings—for air ambulances, for example.
Unlike restaurants, airports have had no package of measures targeted specifically at them. Unlike restaurants, they have huge capital investment. I urge the Government to devise some tailored help for this beleaguered industry and to do it soon. One example would be relief from business rates for airports in England, so that they come into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is irrelevant in Wales because the Government own the airport. They need this tailored help soon. The opportunity is there for the Government to ensure that the aviation industry becomes more environmentally friendly, because they can put conditions on their help. They can make sure that the development of airports in the future is much more environmentally friendly than it is at this moment. They can do that as a condition of their help. I urge the Minister to consult her colleagues and to announce something soon.
Covid-19: Aviation
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a British Airways pensioner.
Aviation is a key industry in this country, contributing £22 billion a year to the economy and sustaining 230,000 jobs across the sector and the wider supply chain. As the former Prime Minister herself stressed yesterday, the sector is just as important in terms of our global ambitions. Airlines and airport operators will need support, but that support should meet several conditions. They must protect jobs, salaries and workers’ rights, take steps to tackle climate change, maintain their tax base in the UK, not pay dividends until doing so is liable, and fully comply with consumer law, particularly in relation to refunds. Does the Minister agree with these conditions? If not, why not?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the aviation sector has made use of various elements of the financial package put forward by the Treasury. These were non-sector-specific interventions and industry-specific conditions were not applied to them, so that they could be as accessible and easy to use as possible. However, if a firm seeks any bespoke financial support from the Government, the Government would expect that to be done in the taxpayers’ interests. That support may be subject to conditions that may include some of those outlined by the noble Lord.
HS2
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for introducing this debate. It would have been slightly more helpful if the title had indicated that it was to be about whether to build HS2 or not. Fortunately, her case for not building it was well countered by my noble friend Lord Faulkner.
The key question was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, at the beginning of his speech: what would you do if it is not built? I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Adonis mentioned that HS2 has consensus support from the Front Benches, and I am content to reaffirm that.
The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, hit the nail on the head at the beginning of his speech when he said that this is about integration and connectivity. Sadly, my mental map of the north made it difficult for me to follow much of the rest of his speech.
I would also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for bringing up the limitations of the cost-benefit ratio process. It is not very good at extrapolative conclusions, but it is quite good at interpretive ones. The Jubilee line extension reduced below unity before we started work on it, but it has changed the city. In a post-facto evaluation it came out at 2.5; over the 120 years that it will exist, I am sure it will be almost infinite.
The Government’s decision to proceed with HS2 has been confirmed, despite the escalation in construction costs that resulted from dramatic mismanagement. A high-speed route connecting London to the north of England and up to Scotland is a necessary step to deal with the capacity issues on our railways, but the Government must take decisive action on several fronts as the project proceeds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, framed the debate by considering the route, speed and station location. Although these are important factors that could determine the success of the project, there are a number of other issues I wish to raise. First, we must consider how HS2 can be built as part of a wider network to connect towns and cities across Britain, using railways as a means of creating opportunities and lessening regional inequality. To this end, the Government must commit to integrating HS2 with Crossrail for the North, to extending the line to Scotland, and to the extensive reopening of branch lines to enable communities to reach HS2 by rail. This would reflect the initial intention behind HS2: that it would be a means to engineer growth for the area, which has not felt the same growth as London and the south-east.
In view of the investment potential of the UK economy, it is vital that the Government also commit to running HS2 services under public ownership. That way, it is the UK public, not private or overseas state companies, which will see a return.
Turning to the issues that the noble Baroness has detailed in her debate title, I will address route and speed together, as the central question here is whether it remains desirable to construct the line at the intended speed, despite the route constraints that this necessitates. If the Government chose to reduce the speed, there could be greater flexibility regarding the path the line follows. This would allow more thought to be given to the impact on the natural environment. However, this must be considered in addition to the economic and capacity benefits of the faster routes.
Can the Minister say whether the Government think it is more desirable to have a faster line with less route flexibility, or a slower one with greater route flexibility? Can she also indicate—this touches on my noble friend Lord Faulkner’s point—the cost implications of a change to the route alignment at this stage of the project?
Turning to the location of stations, there is little debate to be had about the cities along the route at which the service will stop, but serious questions have to be raised about whether the specific station locations within those cities are appropriate. There is also the issue, which I mentioned earlier, of the links from HS2 stations to others across the network, and the need to reopen stations and lines to connect communities to the network. When will the Government consider the proposals received relating to the £500 million fund for reopening railway lines?
A high-speed route is imperative to deal with the issue of our railways and the wider problems of regional inequality. However, such mismanagement, which has already led to such a dramatic increase in cost, is not inevitable. Can the Minister set out in more detail what structural changes to the management are planned? As spenders of large amounts of public money, can we be assured that HS2 will be instructed to adopt a culture of openness? I, more than most people, understand that things can go wrong with big projects. Cover-up and secrecy are the least positive reactions in those circumstances.
I hope the Minister can answer the questions that I and other noble Lords have asked, in order to assure the House that the Government have taken note of the mistakes so far and will change course to ensure that the project is delivered in the appropriate way to gain public support.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Will the Minister be kind enough to consult Hansard and cover, by letter, any issues that she has not dealt with, then copy those letters to all noble Lords who have participated?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I will certainly do that; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for mentioning it. I am aware that he asked some questions about governance and management, which are incredibly important. I will certainly go into detail on them and other things. I also note the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and others about BCR and the analysis of transport schemes in general. As a Transport Minister, I am deeply aware of those issues; we will work on them over the forthcoming period.
I thank all noble Lords for their participation in today’s debate. HS2 debates are always very interesting; I am sure there are many more to come.