Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this instrument. The Government are right to permit the making of direct awards for PSO contracts and to ensure that they are able to meet the obligations under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. I have no intention of opposing the regulations.
I had a number of questions, but the Minister has already answered most of them—although I will not go as far as saying that he did so satisfactorily—and at this late hour, I do not intend to repeat them. Along with the answers he will give to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I think that this will be sufficient debate.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their consideration of the draft regulations. I will turn to the points raised.
Regulation 1370 provides a bespoke, flexible procurement and subsidy regime for public service contracts, reflecting the fact that they are vital public services and cannot always be operated on an entirely commercial basis. Now that we have left the EU, we are able to preserve essential flexibilities and simplify the regime where possible, giving contracting authorities a strong basis for providing these key public services. Simply revoking the regime altogether would mean allowing to fall away direct award powers which provide government and franchise authorities such as Transport for London with important flexibilities in awarding rail contracts. That would create significant challenges in ensuring the effective operation of public transport services, particularly rail services.
Following privatisation 25 years ago, passenger numbers had more than doubled before the pandemic, rising more quickly than in most of Europe. The private sector has invested billions in new, modern trains and upgrading our stations—investment that would not have happened under nationalisation.
It is the Government’s intention to return to competition as quickly as possible. The intent of regulation 1370 is to encourage competition, so the default process for the award of a passenger services contract is primarily through competition. However, regulation 1370 recognises that, in certain circumstances, it will be necessary to award a contract without competition by instead making a direct award. The powers to award directly are not new but were due to expire under EU legislation. We feel that it is in the best interests of the railways and passengers in Great Britain to retain them, and leaving the EU has given us the flexibility to do so. We have committed to restart the competition for contracts as soon as possible, which will require stable market conditions and sufficient long-term certainty.
Engagement with the proposed amendments to regulation 1370 has been ongoing since early summer 2022. The key amendments to regulation 1370 were publicly consulted on as part of the plan for rail consultation. Stakeholders were generally supportive of the proposed amendments, and the Government response will be published shortly. We have held targeted engagement with key affected stakeholders on the amendments proposed in addition to those publicly consulted on. In addition to face-to-face meetings to talk stakeholders through the additional amendments and our reasoning, we have sent written detail for further consideration, including to rail partners, franchising authorities and bus and light rail stakeholders. The wide engagement enabled the Department for Transport to work closely with stakeholders affected by the instrument and address issues raised; for example, updating the definition of “rail” in line with survey feedback enabled us to achieve a broad consensus on the change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the point about engagement and consultation carried out with the devolved Administrations. As a result of close engagement, both Scottish and Welsh Ministers have provided agreement to the regulations. My officials met with each of the devolved Administrations covered by this instrument on a regular basis during the formulation of the policy and the drafting of the instrument. We worked closely with the devolved Administrations to address any concerns, including detailed work on the SI with Transport Scotland, with the result that, following ministerial approval to the instrument, Scottish parliamentary agreement was received. I commend the Motion.
Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the global shift towards zero-emission vehicles presents opportunities and challenges here in the UK. The automotive industry will be at the forefront of each of them, and it will need the support and engagement of the Government to address the challenges and maximise the opportunities. I am therefore pleased that Ministers are turning their attention to new incentive schemes to encourage the production and sale of new ZEVs, and we will not oppose this instrument.
The commitment to ending new sales of ZEVs by 2035 is fast approaching and schemes such as this will play a vital part. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister can provide clarity on a couple of points. First, given that the UK is no longer part of the EU new car and van emissions regulatory framework, how does this compare with similar systems internationally? Secondly, will the Minister explain how many special-purpose vehicles will be exempt?
In the consultation section of the Explanatory Memorandum there is a reference to the Climate Change Committee’s contribution. I am a great fan of that committee and, although this is not personal, the quality of the Government’s decision-making over the recent past leaves me with some discomfort in taking their statements for granted. The Climate Change Committee, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has established an excellent reputation for carefully thought-out positions, and I therefore wonder why the letter referred to in paragraph 10.2 has not been responded to. There is every possibility, given the volume of paperwork on this, that it has been and I have missed it. Has it been responded to? If not, why not? If it was, why is that not in the EM?
The letter is important. As a generality it is quite supportive, but it makes two important points. Since it is better than my speech, I will read from it. The first point is this:
“The mandate will provide clarity for manufacturers, businesses and motorists on the direction of the UK market and the rate of change required. To build on this and demonstrate consistency to the market, we recommend that your department”—
that is, the Department for Transport—
“also sets targets for the period from 2030-2035, making sure these are ambitious enough to minimise the impact of continuing petrol and diesel vehicle sales on UK emissions”.
A theme that has come from the industry over the last decade is that it wants consistency, as far into the future as possible. The committee makes the good point that the period needs to be stuck on to the end of this instrument somehow so that the industry can plan right through that period.
The committee’s second point is this:
“Another critical element of the proposed legislation are the efficiency standards for new petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles which will continue to be sold until 2035. Typical new cars remain on the road for around 14 years. Therefore, ICE and hybrid vehicles that continue to be sold alongside the mandate will continue producing emissions for a considerable period. We are concerned that the regulations proposed for this portion of the market, which would require that the average emissions of each manufacturer’s new non-zero-emission car and van sales remain constant at 2021 levels each year, are insufficiently ambitious to deliver the emissions savings required to meet the UK’s Nationally Determined Contribution to the UNFCCC”—
I looked that up, and it is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—
“and the Sixth Carbon Budget. Our calculations”—
and I have faith in the committee’s calculations—
“show that this policy of maintaining flat emissions intensities will reduce emissions savings by around 3 MtCO2e per year by 2030 compared to my Committee’s Net Zero Pathway”.
I hope the Government will reconsider this element, because I find both arguments convincing and significant.
Low-traffic Neighbourhoods
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words. Transport is the largest source of greenhouse gases in the UK, with domestic transport accounting for some 26% of all emissions in 2021. Road vehicles produce over 90% of transport’s domestic carbon emissions, so the transition to electric vehicles is a clear priority as well as an opportunity to grow the economy. We will end the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2035. From 2040, all new HGVs will be fully zero-emission.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role—this is a blood sport and he is the fox. Local authorities held accountable to residents at elections are best placed to decide how to manage traffic in their communities, yet we are now more than four months into a Whitehall-led review of the implementation of low-traffic neighbourhoods. Can the Minister explain how much this review process is costing, what value added is expected and whether the Government are contemplating primary legislation?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The review is focusing on fact-finding to ensure that these schemes work for residents, businesses and emergency services and enable more choice in how people make their journeys. We expect the review to report back in early 2024, after which the Government will consider its findings and any necessary next steps to ensure that the schemes deliver the objectives they set out and take account of communities’ views.
Flying Schools: Liquidation
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Three flying schools have closed. One of those was a planned closure, and the trainees were not impacted. Two were unplanned closures, and trainees were impacted. There remain around 270 flying schools. As I said, it is a small amount. The noble Baroness mentioned £80,000; I cannot corroborate that figure. That seems quite high to me; it would mean that somebody is paying for their entire training up front. Again, this is the point I am trying to make; it is up to the trainees. Working with BALPA and the CAA—wherever trainees get their information—it is about getting the information to them to say: “You do not need to pay vast amounts of money up front, and if a flying school is asking for that, it is entirely reasonable to go elsewhere”. As I say, there are 270 flying schools in the UK.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this issue is essentially a financial one. It is a matter of the chaotic planning of pilot training. Ever since the Second World War, there have only been periods of it being properly done. I was trained in the 1960s, paid for by the national airlines. That yielded a group of pilots which has created four decades of ever-increasing safety. Mistakes were made in demand; I was also responsible for those, having got the number of pilots catastrophically wrong—we had too many. It has gone on like that. In the recent past, we have had this magic formula of leaving it to the private sector. Now, things have happened to the private sector that have put these relatively small businesses under stress. The Minister’s department needs to study the whole thing and see where we are.
I think there must be a real crisis because, as the Minister will know, British Airways has launched the Speedbird Pilot Academy for 60 candidates—wholly paid for, including board and lodging. The problem that has emerged is twofold. First, becoming an airline pilot is probably the profession that needs the right parents more than others as £120,000 is the sort of figure you need. Secondly, there is instability among the flying schools. Will the Minister look into this problem and see whether she can bring some stability to the situation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The Government have already looked at this and we continue to look at this in some detail. In May this year we published an independent research report commissioned by the Department for Transport which looked into the cost of airline pilot training and the numbers that we are likely to need. It forecast a shortage in about 20 years. However, that prediction was highly uncertain, so I would very much like the airlines to work with the training schools and BALPA to come forward with proposals, which I will happily look at.
Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2023
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to make a declaration of interest, although it is not required within the rules. I am a British Airways pensioner, which is a significant part of my lifestyle after 20 years in the industry.
I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. I do not know whether it is something to do with my dying brain, but I found the Explanatory Memorandum somewhat difficult to follow, and I thank my associate, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for giving the EM a good beating on my behalf. I had some difficulty understanding it, but I thank the Minister for ensuring that this time there was a telephone number in the document.
The concept divides into two parts. One is the tools available and the other is the need. As far as I could tell, the tools available are roughly the same tools as we had for this winter. If that is not true, I would be grateful if the Minister could put me right, but if they are not the same, I think they are substantially the same. Are the problems facing airlines sufficiently serious to resurrect this set of tools? Clearly, the department thinks the answer is yes. I am content with the reasoning for winter 2023-24 that this SI should succeed and the tools become available.
However, I think that creates some questions. The principal question is: is the exceptional becoming the norm? If it is, and if the Government concur with me that it is looking dangerously close to that, we need to move to a more permanent arrangement because the notice that operators will get under these systems continues to be very short. It would be much more satisfactory if the industry were able to plan further ahead against a more stable environment or regime. If there is an agreement that it should move ahead, there is a need for a more numerically supported case. For instance, an issue that is brought out is the availability of spares. I am sure that is a problem, but we need to know just what impact it is having.
The reason given for these rules is that the consumer needs stability, volume, frequency and all that. I am sure that is true, but it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that the application of these rules and the extent to which they allow operators not to operate have an impact on the balance between established operators and potential new entrants. That has to enter the balance between the solution and the extent to which these tools are enhanced or diminished. The question then becomes: how do you determine the right balance? I argue that the right balance is the general good. Having faced the problem in transport of how you define the general good, it is an important question that deserves debate—well ahead of the introduction of the next set of rules. I hope that the Minister will agree that a more in-depth look at this problem, with the possibility of producing a more permanent set of rules, can be considered.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate and for welcoming the regulations in general. I will take a few minutes to go through some of the points raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, started by noting the Explanatory Memorandum. I am now in a situation where I am not sure I will ever get an Explanatory Memorandum right, but we do try, and I hope she will appreciate that. We have them read by a senior civil servant not connected with the policy. The criticism of this one was that it was too light in certain elements, so we added more in. Sometimes they then become too hefty, particularly as noble Lords will have seen these regulations many times previously in different forms. We will continue to do our very best when it comes to the SLSC and keeping everybody happy and, more importantly, informed, both in your Lordships’ House and beyond, about what the Government are trying to do and explaining that position. That is incredibly important. It remains top of mind, and I will continue to try to do my best.
On the point the noble Baroness raised about the aviation industry in general, I do not think it is under- performing as much as she thinks it is. It had a very successful summer. Apart from the issue at the end of the summer, I was not made aware of any issues to make me feel that the industry was underperforming. The major airports were amazing, particularly when I travelled through. I found that there were no queues. Bar the NATS outage, which, as noble Lords know, the CAA is investigating, and the wildfires, which of course are a factor beyond the airlines’ control, the industry performed really well.
The noble Baroness mentioned recruitment. There is no recruitment problem. The aviation sector over- recruited on purpose to ensure that we did not see a repeat of what happened in summer 2022. I will hold the next Aviation Council in a couple of weeks and obviously I will reflect with it on how it felt the summer went, but in broad terms, bar one or two issues—there will always be one or two—it stood up pretty well.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Does the Minister anticipate producing a report as a result of that meeting? If so, can we have it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not believe that we will produce a report as a result of that meeting because, if we discuss performance, those meetings are very much ad hoc check-ins. We cover more substantive issues, such as airspace modernisation; I believe that the next one might be on slot reform, which might be interesting. The minutes of the meetings are published on GOV.UK, so the noble Lord might wish to look at that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will know that slot oversight and enforcement are done by a third party, ACL, which is entirely separate from government. We do not have any involvement at all—rightly so—in the way in which it oversees and enforces slots. If the noble Baroness is aware of anomalies, I would be grateful if she could let me know; I will raise them with ACL, because that is how it is supposed to do its job. It does a very good job in many circumstances; indeed, it does slot oversight not only in the UK but in many other countries because it is that good.
NATS: Staffing
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord conflates two of my favourite topics. As he knows, both those companies are privately run and can recruit as many people as they like. However, they suffer the same thing: during the Covid pandemic, it was very difficult to train traffic controllers and train drivers. To a certain extent, there is a bit of catch-up going on. As I say, for train drivers as for air traffic controllers, training takes a very long time. It is at least 18 months before that person is operational.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very complex and almost unique issue. We have the failure of a small unit, with perhaps three people on duty, impacting on the enterprise as a whole. The problem is: what is the adequate reserve? When NATS took over in October last year, Gatwick saw the need to agree staffing levels. As an increase in staff was needed, recruitment and training were put in hand, but it has not yet delivered. That was 11 months ago. It may be that ab initio to on duty is 13 months, but surely more energy should be put into finding a bridging solution to that problem. We also need to worry about who should be financially responsible. I caution against putting the responsibility on NATS on the day, because the runway is the most dangerous part of any operation, especially into Gatwick. But is the present situation equitable and, in the final analysis, is not Gatwick responsible for Gatwick?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
In the final analysis, Gatwick is indeed responsible for Gatwick. As the noble Lord will know, there are numerous London airports which, I am sure, would be happy to provide services. Therefore, there is a rationale for Gatwick management making sure that their operations run very smoothly. The noble Lord mentioned a bridging solution. I agree; I wish there were one. However, the simple fact is that Gatwick is the busiest single-runway airport in the world. Even an experienced air traffic controller still needs that 13 months to train in order to take up their role. Even worse than that, at 13 months the success rate is still 50%, because safety always comes first.
Public Charge Point Regulations 2023
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I start by saying that I do not have an electric vehicle, which is probably why I am more content than the present company and the noble Baronesses who have experienced them.
The transition to electric vehicles is essential for the UK to meet its climate targets. It also represents an opportunity for economic growth and the future of our automotive industry. I therefore welcome the Government’s attempts to better regulate public charge points to make their use a more attractive prospect for motorists.
If electric vehicles are to become the norm, they must be as reliable and convenient as their petrol or diesel equivalents. Unfortunately, I fear that these regulations alone will not achieve this. The Minister will be aware that, at the current rate, we will have fewer than half the public electric vehicle charging points that the Government predict will be needed by 2030 and there is huge regional inequality in access to these points.
The borough in which we are today has a greater number of public charging points than the 14 biggest northern cities combined. For those people living in charging deserts, improved reliability does not change the fact that they do not have access to charging points. Has the Minister considered new binding targets for electric vehicle charge points to boost their rollout?
I have three questions on the regulations, on which I hope the Minister can provide assurances. The impact assessment estimates a £109 million net cost to business per year. How have the Government sought to minimise this?
Secondly, can the Minister explain why the regulations represent 99% reliability per rapid network rather than per individual rapid charge point? Having said that, I am amazed by the 99% figure. I know of no system that has unsupervised public access and works at that level of availability. It is a very rough world—a world where you are exposed to the unsupervised British citizen. Perhaps the reason, as I read the SI, is that failing this test leads to a £10,000 fine and nothing more. I suspect that that will be seen as just part of taxation.
Finally, given that micro-businesses are excluded, how many charging points will not be impacted by these regulations?
I welcome this SI because it is a first step, as the Minister will accept, but the overwhelming problem is availability. I was given the figure of 300,000 as the target so I researched it; I found a reference by the Minister of State, Jesse Norman, from 7 March this year, to a White Paper, Taking Charge: The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy. Unfortunately, this is not uniquely a document that is undated and unsigned. On page 38, there is a reference to the 300,000 figure:
“However, if we assume that on a national basis there is a high proportion of charging at workplaces and that consumers adopt efficient charging behaviour, as well as lower mileage, around 300,000 public chargepoints would be required”.
So this figure assumes that useful behavioural changes will occur. The document goes on to say:
“This number would increase up to around 700,000 if there is a higher proportion of on-street chargers across the country, and consumers drive more and adopt relatively inefficient charging behaviours, staying longer parked at chargepoints while not actually charging. Our estimates are in line with the latest industry findings”.
It seems to me that 300,000 is a pretty adventurous figure but 700,000 is surely impossible.
This is a crisis area. As the decade plays out, we must create an atmosphere that means that, if you buy an electric car, it will be as convenient to drive as the petrol car you give up. I do not see how we are going to get there. I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort that this aspiration is practical. It is certainly not practical simply on the basis of this SI.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate on these regulations, which relate to electric vehicle charge points. I take seriously many of the issues raised by noble Lords.
My overarching observation is that the consultation for these regulations took place in the first half of 2021 and, since then, we have had to reach a balance and work hard with an industry that is, in some cases, quite nascent and, in others, made up of fast-growing businesses. We need to balance the burden that we put on business, its cost and the maximum reasonable utility to EV drivers. That balance is quite difficult, which, to a certain extent, is why there are delays in introducing some of these things. One needs to give the industry some time—for example, the two years to sign up to a third-party payment roaming provider. Of course, other interventions are within one year.
In positive news, we are already seeing a significant movement from the charge point providers because they know that this is coming now. These regulations have not yet been through the House of Commons but they will, and the providers know that they are coming. We are seeing movement and we have had to reach that difficult balance. A number of noble Lords have highlighted particular issues where they feel that further changes might be made, for example in certain circumstances where a charger is 7 kilowatts and the new requirement is 8 kilowatts, for contactless; that was brought up by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. We will do a consultation later this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked me to recognise that this is the start of a journey. It is very much so—I expect us to develop the requirements over time—but we absolutely do not want to stop the industry in its tracks by getting these charge points out there when it is very much helping the Government and the country.
E-bikes
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, while the legal speed limit for e-bikes is 25 kph, the Minister will know that models which exceed that are widely available, and many who ride them may not even know that they are breaking the law. What assessment has the Minister made of the levels of enforcement by the police of those models, and can she share any data on these, including possible confiscation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Yes. The Government are extremely active in this area. As I said previously, the DVSA has a market surveillance programme. Each retailer must check that the EAPC is compatible with the regulations. To date, five retailers have been prosecuted and there have been fines and criminal convictions, while many other investigations are ongoing. Such retailers are instructed to recall and remedy any non-compliant products. There is a system for catching these products. If there are products out there that have an off-road capability, for example, where you can switch it to more than 15.5 mph, we believe that those products do not comply with the regulations and we would encourage the DVSA to take appropriate enforcement action.
Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the regulations which are the subject of this regret Motion amend four retained EU regulations. Two of them are amended to implement revised standards and practices adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization. These involve implementing new safety management systems for the production and maintenance of aircraft. The other two regulations are amended to delay changes in balloon and glider licensing until 2025.
I have laid this regret Motion because I am concerned about the delays and their impact on issues relating to aviation safety. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported that the original Explanatory Memorandum was inadequate because it failed even to attempt to explain why, in the view of the Department for Transport, these delays were not a problem.
There is a tendency for Department for Transport explanatory memoranda to be rather sketchy. By way of background, it is important to remind ourselves that the department has a long-standing problem with managing its legislation, much of which flows from our international treaty obligations. The department fell badly behind in managing legislation for the maritime sector, some of which was up to 20 years overdue. Huge efforts have been made to catch up, and I pay tribute to the Minister for hers. But now the department is faced with a similar problem on aviation standards. Prior to Brexit, new standards based on the Chicago convention on civil aviation would have been automatically implemented via the EU. Now, we have to do it ourselves. The safety management changes were implemented in the EU in 2021—and, by the way, that was already rather late.
This is two years later for us, and this legislation allows until July 2024 for it to be implemented, after which firms are given a further two years to comply. So we are well behind the curve—a cumulative delay of over a decade since the ICAO regulations were introduced. This picture is becoming familiar. In the past, we relied on the combined resources of what was then the 28 EU nations and their expertise to devise and implement technical modernisation. Now, we have to do it on our own. It is complex, expensive and time consuming, and the delays are putting our manufacturers and aviation industry, in this case, at a disadvantage.
My concerns are as follows. This industry has a complex supply chain, with many hundreds—even thousands—of firms, so it is essential that appropriate safety management systems are in place for the design and production of aeronautical parts. My specific questions to the Minister are as follows. First, the Government say that this delay will not impact safety, but I cannot see how that can be: what is the point of having a safety management system if it does not have any impact on safety? Secondly, as the legislation makes clear, it is for the CAA to review and approve the new SMSs. Can the Minister tell us specifically how much the CAA has been allocated in additional funding to undertake this work? Can she reassure us that these resources will be adequate? The Minister will not be surprised by these questions; I repeatedly ask about resources allocated to the CAA.
The second part of the regulations relates to balloon and glider licensing, changing the current deadline to transfer to the new system, which was inherited from EASA, from the end of 2023 to the end of 2025. The Explanatory Memorandum justifies this simply by saying that
“the CAA is undertaking a … review of private pilot licensing which may result in significant changes to … licensing requirements”.
The Department for Transport calls this the pilot “licensing and training simplification” project. It was initiated by the previous Secretary of State, whom noble Lords will recall is a keen general aviation enthusiast.
As background, it is important to note that the pandemic encouraged major growth in the market for private aviation—I note that the Prime Minister seems to be quite keen on private aviation as well, although I do not think he is a pilot himself. There is now a flourishing secondary market in private flights, and, as a Cardiff citizen, I am acutely aware of the complexities of this market, revealed to many of us for the first time by the tragic accident that led to the death of the footballer, Emiliano Sala. Many of us did not understand how complex this whole set-up was.
There are a number of worrying grey areas relating to implementing the legislation, which again falls to the CAA. The expansion of the market has intensified the obvious challenges it faces in inspecting and implementing the regulations. So can the Minister assure us, once again, that the CAA has adequate resources? My concern is that the UK has a reputation as an aviation leader, with high standards of safety compared with, for example, the USA, where it is much easier to get a private pilot’s licence. We should not sacrifice that in the chase for an ephemeral benefit of Brexit.
I am concerned about what these regulations reveal about pressures within the Department for Transport. Its defence to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s criticism of its Explanatory Memoranda, and the delays in bringing forth this legislation, was that it has to make “prioritisation decisions” regarding regulation. In the light of these constraints, it is worrying that the department also faces additional programmes that will create challenges for it—for example, those imposed by the revocation of EU law Bill, shortly to be an Act. On top of this, there is the general aviation change programme, which now faces its own 25% reduction in resources—I am told that the amount of money allocated to the CAA for that programme has been reduced by 25%—so can the Minister explain why the funding has been cut? Can she explain whether the Government intend to pursue this programme, despite the cut in funding?
Overall, there is huge public concern about basic day-to-day issues that are crying out for legislation in relation to transport. There is technological change and challenge—for example, with issues like e-scooters and e-bikes, which desperately need regulation. There is also a crisis in our railways, which urgently need legislation to create Great British Railways. I am concerned that the Government are pursuing policies such as the reform of private flying while they tell us that they have no parliamentary time in their programme for such day-to-day issues as the state of the railways and the reform of train fares. So my purpose in laying this regret Motion was to give the Minister the opportunity to explain to us why there are delays in aviation legislation now and why there are such huge pressures within the department in terms of prioritising the various strands of its activity, specifically its legislative activity.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I rise again in this crowded Chamber to discuss a transport issue. This sort of debate should be divided into two. Let us first look at the instrument itself, rather than the problems with getting it here. Civil aviation in general is really quite safe. The very sad interruption to that general trend was of course with the Boeing 737 MAX, but, otherwise, the trends have been quite positive. This is based on a mechanism: the Chicago convention and the ICAO processes. I knew this was quite old, but I looked it up and saw that the convention was signed by 52 nations before the end of the Second World War, on 7 December 1944. It became legal, if that is the right term—I do not do conventions often—or rather it came into force, on 4 April 1947.
It is a sort of treaty obligation, but it is a bit looser in being a convention. In practice, the industry, over the years, has understood the value of behaving together. So most significant aviation nations in Europe, one way or another, through the European system, sought to achieve harmonisation with the ICAO regulations of the time. It seems to me, reading through the material, that the essence is one of delay. I think that was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The test, to some extent, has to be: what is the significance of the delay, particularly with respect to safety?
Great British Railways
Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, in May 2021, in CP 423, the Government set out their vision for Great British Railways:
“Under single national leadership, our railways will be more agile: able to react quicker, spot opportunities, make common-sense choices, and use the kind of operational flexibilities normal in most organisations, but difficult or impossible in the current contractual spider’s web”.
Given the delay since then, are the Government still committed to this vision, or do they accept the ongoing chaos that is the national railway today?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government remain committed to that mission. Indeed, so much of what we are doing with the railways at the moment is in pursuit of that mission. For example, the Rail Minister has asked the Great British Railways transition team to look at simplification of the railways—at how to simplify the complex rules and processes which exist in rail and which do not need to. That process will be completed later this year.