Transport System: Failings
Lord Whitty Excerpts(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Snape on this debate and his opening speech, particularly his excoriation of the railway system for the experience of passengers these days under privatisation, which my noble friend Lord Murphy has just underlined. His anecdote about Newport station takes me back even further than 45 years to when I used to visit my Welsh relatives. I quite admired and was rather impressed by Newport station, and even more impressed by the train service at the time. Sadly, that has deteriorated.
I also welcome, like my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Murphy, the announcement by my friend in another place Louise Haigh, whom I hope will soon be Secretary of State for Transport. We need a drastic change in the way we run our system. Since privatisation, the situation has become even more dire for passengers year by year, and we have ended up in effect with the state having responsibility without power and having to meet a significant part of the cost. The system of franchising is broken and successive regulators have failed. We have had the Strategic Rail Authority, the Office of the Rail Regulator and now we have the Office of Rail and Road. It would have been more accurate if they had all been designated with the title of “Offtrack”, because that is what they are. The system has gone downhill ever since privatisation. Whatever the failings beforehand, they have been multiplied since.
This calls for a broader approach to transport policy—although, before I leave rail, I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has drawn to my attention that, since the start of the debate and his own speech, there have been 10 cancellations out of Euston station this very day.
The question is wider than rail policy. Transport policy has many objectives. Some of them are contradictory, and they need a cohesive and clear approach, both within and between sectors. Some of these contradictions and problems are macro, such as the state of the railways and the fiasco of HS2, but some are micro. I shall give a personal example. I live seven miles from a railway station. There is a bus service to it from my town of only one bus per hour, and outside rush hour there is only one train per hour, but the first three buses in the morning are scheduled to arrive three minutes after the trains for London and Exeter have departed. A little bit of integration could help because that causes people to rely entirely on their cars, increasing congestion on our inadequate rural roads and increasing pollution.
We need integration within and between sectors. I support more space for cyclists, but some of the provision for cyclists contradicts road use elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has just reported one effect of shared space at floating bus stops. We must ensure that pedestrians as well as cyclists are protected and that the provision of cycle lanes—which I support—is done in such a way that it does not increase greater congestion and danger to pedestrians.
We need a real integrated plan. Others have referred to the proposals by the Institution of Civil Engineers for the integration of transport infrastructure; obviously it needs to be broader than infrastructure, but infrastructure is where it starts.
We need to ensure some degree of modal shift away from fossil fuel-using cars and pollution-producing transport. Freight trains, for example, contribute about a quarter of the carbon emissions that the equivalent on the roads would produce. We need to ensure that this is provided for in the infrastructure on the roads as well as on rail.
I shall mention three issues that are dear to my heart but which have not been touched on much today. First, the switch to electric vehicles has slowed down. I was a member of your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee when we produced a report about a year ago on this topic. I would like a clear and positive response about reversing that decline and ensuring in particular that there is a market for small electric vehicles in this country.
My second point is on aviation. I declare my vice-presidency of BALPA. If aviation is to continue to supply domestic and short-haul routes, it has to be more environmentally sustainable. That means more investment in sustainable aviation fuel. It also means concentrating on changing the pattern of flights, scheduling and payload, and the way in which our domestic aviation system works. That has hardly received any attention.
Finally, building on what the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has said on road safety, I was disheartened a few weeks ago when the Minister replied to an Oral Question that he saw no reason to have a road safety strategy. Previous road safety strategies have worked very successfully and saved many lives. We need to integrate driver behaviour, road and vehicle design, road signage, speed and traffic organisation. That is quite difficult, but it needs to be done. To reduce the continuing high level of accidents and danger to pedestrians and car occupants, we need a proper road safety strategy. I hope the Minister can include that in his reply.
I hope that we can see a more integrated approach. I hope that the incoming Government will provide one. The announcement on railways is a good start, but we need a much broader policy that takes in all modes and types of users.
South West Rail Resilience Programme
Lord Whitty Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to provide funding to ensure the timely completion of the works to protect the rail line at Dawlish from flooding, including Phase 5 of the South West Rail Resilience programme.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm that Network Rail has delivered two phases of the south-west resilience programme, providing protection to the railway at Dawlish from coastal flooding. The third and fourth phases addressing cliff protection measures are in delivery, with a combined budget of £85 million. Network Rail is being funding to deliver a detailed proposal for the fifth and final phase, which addresses cliff protection for a mile-long stretch of the railway.
Noble Lords
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to see that Members are so keen to speak. I thank the Minister for her reply, but it does not really answer the Question—or it does so only partly—and it does not reflect the importance of this line to the already existing problems of transport links to west Devon and Cornwall. Can she reassure us that the vital fourth and fifth phases—she mentioned the fourth, but not the fifth—will indeed be fully funded by Network Rail and the department? Can she give us an estimated date of completion to restore full resilience to this vital link to the far south-west?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I mentioned in my opening Answer, Network Rail is working on the fifth phase of the works in some detail; we need to establish detailed proposals for this mile-long stretch of the railway. Local consultations have happened, and there was some reluctance around some of the proposals put forward. Therefore, Network Rail is looking at the scope and costs of the fifth phase.
HGV Drivers
Lord Whitty Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, this crisis was eminently predictable in light of the age profile of UK haulage drivers and the prospect of Brexit. Do the Government now recognise that temporary visas and increased testing capacity will not resolve the basic problem? Do Ministers accept that in order to attract and retain the next generation of HGV drivers we need not only to provide more training, increase pay and stop the permanent escalation of hours but to improve working conditions, particularly adequate and hygienic facilities at lorry parks, which are provided by public authorities in much of the continent but not here, so that too many drivers have to sleep in their cabs?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think that the noble Lord has just pointed out the complex and convoluted nature of the solutions to this problem, which is indeed long-standing. I say again that we are working closely with the industry on this. Of course it is not just the haulage industry that has skin in this game; it is also the people who provide services to the haulage industry. The noble Lord will be pleased to hear that I am working with National Highways to figure out what we can do to improve services at motorway service areas and to see whether we can develop some more.
Lorry Drivers
Lord Whitty Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
The Minister appears to be blaming the industry and the pandemic but, given that she referred to discussions in 2016 and 2018, do the Government not have some responsibility in this respect? This crisis was eminently predictable, given the age profile of drivers and the likely reaction of east European drivers to Brexit. Do the Government need more powers and responsibilities to establish an emergency programme of training for qualified HGV drivers and to implement it in concert with the industry, unions and FE sector now?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I have said that this is a partnership between the industry and the Government. We will do what we can and we need industry to step up to the plate. I reiterate that the HGV levy has been lifted until mid-2022. That is a huge saving for the sector. It has the money that it could now invest in skills, and I very much encourage it to do so.
E-Scooters
Lord Whitty Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
When one purchases an e-scooter, the vast majority of retailers say that it is for use on private land only. I will take the noble Baroness’s comments back to the department to see what else we can do.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the dangers to pedestrians, particularly disabled pedestrians, how come there are scooters on the pavement within a few hundred yards of the Palace of Westminster and elsewhere, when it is against the law to be on the pavement anywhere? How come there have been so few prosecutions and that you are still allowed to buy and sell these scooters when, in the trial areas, you must use those provided by designated renters only?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I have probably addressed many of the issues that the noble Lord points out. I will take that point about enforcement and what more we can do back to the Home Office. E-scooters should never be on the pavement, as is the case with bicycles. The OECD’s international transport forum analysed various global studies of e-scooter safety and concluded that they are broadly equivalent to cycles. That may or may not be reassuring to the noble Lord.
Hauliers
Lord Whitty Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has spelled out the problems. The reason they have not been as apparent as they might is not just the Covid effect, but as the period of grace means that the regulations have not been fully implemented either across the channel or in Northern Ireland.
My main point is a different one. Once we return to something like pre-existing levels of exports and imports, there will be a serious problem of a lack of skilled HGV drivers. A disproportionate number of HGV drivers from and to the UK, whether employed, subcontracted or owner-drivers, have been EU citizens, mainly from central and eastern Europe. A lot of small EU firms also operate over here. The British-based driving workforce is ageing.
Brexit has meant thousands of haulage drivers who are EU citizens leaving the UK and small EU-owned hauliers are also pulling out. Part of the post-Brexit plan for road haulage has to be an upgraded workforce. We need a systematic training and upskilling system and recruitment of a new generation of drivers. I see no plan for that, either by Government or by the industry. In her reply, can the Minister please enlighten the Committee on what is the strategy for upgrading the UK road haulage workforce?
Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2020
Lord Whitty Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her words. She made it sound as if these amending orders were a relatively straightforward way of dealing with the post-Brexit situation but, taken together with everything else we know, it conjures up something closer to a hard border in Kent than the free, frictionless trade we were promised after Brexit.
I have four areas to raise with the Minister but, when she winds up, can she first indicate whether any of this is likely to be included in any trade agreements that might be reached within the next few days? Rumour is that there is a specific sub-agreement on road haulage that might make life a bit easier than what she has described when Operation Brock would be needed.
The first point I want to raise is on guidance. Over the weekend, I tried to read the Government’s 24-page guidance for hauliers and commercial drivers. It is not an easy read or particularly user-friendly, but it is better than the 262-page document they issued the previous month. However, it is not comprehensible at a glance. What efforts have the Government made to ensure that information is communicated to haulage offices and to individual drivers, who themselves may be of multiple nationalities, in a form that is easily comprehensible? What is surely needed here at this late stage is a user-friendly handbook, plus perhaps an electronic equivalent. Can the Minister report on discussions with the industry and the trade unions on a short, easy-to-read guide for hauliers and drivers to understand?
Secondly, on the related point of enforcement, failure to produce correct documents will fall on individual drivers who may have their vehicles demobilised or turned back, and who may themselves be fined £300, as the Minister explained. My point is that the penalty should surely fall on the company, which has the legal responsibility for documentation, not on individual drivers. It is surely wrong to penalise the worker or subcontracted driver for the failures of the haulier’s administration. Has any discussion on this arrangement involved the trade unions representing drivers? I understand that the Minister’s colleague, Rachel Maclean, told some of our colleagues that she would meet Unite the Union but that, as of this morning, no such meeting has yet been arranged.
The majority of drivers employed by foreign and British hauliers operating on the cross-channel routes are not British nationals; many are, of course, eastern European. There is a difficulty not only of communication but, potentially, of collecting any fine if it falls on the driver and not the company. There is another problem here as well. There will be a need to differentiate drivers and trucks of different nationalities. I understand that there will be an electronic system, which is not completely working properly. It will be able to do so to a degree, but what then happens? For example, trade between Ireland and the remaining countries in the EU mainly transits via Great Britain, but Irish lorries from an EU member state—Ireland—will presumably have easier access through French and Belgian ports, so should the UK side of this operation not allow them to go through more easily? What arrangements have been made for this Irish trade? Will it be given priority, as would logically be the case? While I am about the Irish trade, what are the equivalent arrangements at Holyhead and Fishguard?
Regarding Operation Brock, traffic management and parking, these regulations imply an enormous operation. They envisage situations where the traffic is either near static or gridlocked. Does responsibility for enforcement and Operation Brock, with traffic management on the M2, M20 and feeder roads, fall on the Kent Police or some new organisation? I understand that document checks will be carried out by DVSA personnel. Is the cost of all this to come out of general taxation or a grant to DVSA, Kent County Council or Kent Police? Does the operation involve customs officers and Border Force staff in checking other aspects of the documentation? What are the additional cost and manpower resources for that operation? It is potentially an enormously substantial traffic management task.
Moreover, how will local commercial traffic which operates only within Kent and south-east England—not in international trade at all—be allowed to proceed and not get caught up in the gridlock of international trade? How, for example, will those lorries given key priority because they are carrying live animals or fresh produce be able to work their way through and who is responsible for seeing that they do? Is that the police or the DVSA, and how will they have the authority to get them through?
Are there systems for communicating severe delays back upstream, so that lorry drivers coming through the country either divert or rest well before they reach Kent, so that the situation does not get worse? I understand that hauliers and Unite the Union have also raised the question of facilities at the lorry parks, where drivers may have to stay for hours, if not days, in some cases, if the situation gets really bad. Frankly, a few Portaloos scattered along the M20 is not sufficient.
Finally, can the Minister clarify something on phasing in? In dealing with traffic coming the other way, into the UK, the Government have indicated that they do not initially intend to impose heavy checks at Dover and that the system will be phased in in five stages. Is there a similar understanding with the EU, or with the French and Belgian authorities, so that there will be a phasing-in of their controls the other side of the channel? If that were the case, it would ease the problem on this side to a degree and much in these orders would therefore not often be needed.
Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Lord Whitty Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of these regulations and recognise the urgent need to get them through in time for the end of the transition period, so I intervene not to oppose or amend the transposition, but to get a clearer idea of how the Government intend to proceed in this area, once we have a so-called independent system of regulation, and to put these regulations in a wider context.
My first concern relates to the degree to which any future revisions of these regulations can, in reality, be completely unilateral here in the UK. For example, just this week, the Government announced that they intend to phase out all new diesel and petrol cars by 2030. Presumably, in advance, the Government will tighten the regulations in stages to make a smooth transition away from fossil-fuel-based cars and lorries by making the worst carbon emitters, in effect, illegal first and then by making, in stages, all new vehicles, whether manufactured here or imported, illegal from 2030. Can we do that if the EU is not doing so on the same timescale or in the same stages?
The vast majority of cars and commercial vehicles registered in this country are made by EU-based companies, such as Volkswagen, Renault, Volvo and BMW, or by non-EU companies that have Europe-wide subsidiaries, such as Honda, Toyota, Ford and General Motors. Car production systems are, in effect, an integrated European shop floor, in which different components are produced in different countries, with assembly in different places according to the model. They are traded across Europe without regard to their final assembly location.
In the emissions area, EU regulations are, perhaps notoriously, set with the interests of German manufacturers firmly in mind. That is unlikely to change much after Brexit. It is possible, nevertheless, that the EU’s new commitments on climate change will impose tougher regulations on new models. It is possible, but not certain and probably not likely. So how, in this integrated world of cross-border manufacturing and trading of new models, is it possible for UK carbon-emissions limitations to be seriously out of sync with EU-regulated limits? I am talking about the 10-year period from now until 2030. In reality, can the UK move to tighter limits than Europe during that run-in period? If not, the target to phase out all new fossil-fuel-based vehicles by 2030 looks seriously more difficult.
Another query relates to integrating limits on carbon emissions, as the second and third regulations here do, with other vehicular emissions under air quality rules. In a different context, the Government have already announced in the Environment Bill that they will at some point require levels for area-based exposure limits on a number of exceedances of noxious emissions, from NOx and NO2 to particulates, in a way that would be better than current EU standards and closer to the WHO recommended maximum. At this point, I declare my honorary presidency of the Environmental Protection UK charity.
There are other sources of air pollution but clearly the biggest contributors to excess pollution and most level exceedances are vehicle emissions and the concomitant traffic problems. While the origins of particulates in the combustion system are different from carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, the filtering systems are not very different. The engineering therefore could be combined. The history of successive phases of government attitudes towards diesel shows that, if not managed properly, there can be a conflict between air quality ambitions and carbon reduction ambitions. Would it not be better to seek a unified system of regulation and specification to cover all vehicle emissions? Are the Government considering this either unilaterally or with the EU or, indeed, the Japanese and American regulatory authorities? If not, why not?
Underlying all this, in all vehicular emission regulations are the Government really committed to an enhanced system of real-world testing of the actual level of emissions on the road, rather than relying on the results of laboratory trials? These are conducted largely by the manufacturers and, as we saw in the Volkswagen case, the results can be illegally distorted by them. Unless we guarantee the real-world accuracy of emissions claims, no amount of improvement in the regulations will deliver, in terms of either carbon saving or cleaner, healthier air.
Brexit: Road, Rail and Maritime Transport (EUC Report)
Lord Whitty Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Brexit: road, rail and maritime transport (39th Report, Session 2017–19, HL Paper 355).
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the report was published in May 2019 based on an inquiry by the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee. The majority of our evidence was taken between July and November 2018 in the run-up to the publication of the outline political declaration and Mrs May’s draft withdrawal agreement. It all now sounds like ancient history so this report might be seen as a bit out of date and hardly worth bothering your Lordships with at this stage. The problem is that the questions asked by the committee in the report, which reflected the concerns of the transport sectors, still have not been answered. Even in recent days, it has been made clear by the road haulage sector, in particular, that it still does not consider that it has received satisfactory answers as to the Government’s intention.
Perhaps I should explain that this was my last report as chair of the sub-committee; the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, took over from me in grand style. We will hear from her shortly. Also, the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee ceased to exist after the restructure earlier this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, now chairs the EU Services Sub-Committee, but much of the transport brief is in the hands of the EU Goods Sub-Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. It was a great experience chairing the former sub-committee. I extend my thanks to the members for all their important contributions to this and other reports; above all, I thank the staff, particularly Rosanna Barry and Francesca D’Urzo, who put in heroic efforts on this and earlier reports.
However, we are now 20 months on. The report itself is a bit bifurcated. Although our evidence was clearly focused on what we felt was needed for a full-scale transport aspect for a free trade deal, the subsequent failure to find a Commons majority in support of the then Government’s Brexit deal meant that we had to concentrate also on increased preparations for no deal. We now have a serious case of déjà vu. The reality is that we—and, crucially, those working in and reliant on our cross-border transport sector—are in much the same place: waiting for clarity on the kind of arrangements we will have with the EU while simultaneously preparing for the possibility that there will be no arrangements at all.
Indeed, the Road Haulage Association made this precise point in paragraph 56 of the report. It said:
“If we find ourselves here again in two years’ time, looking at a situation where we are leaving but we do not know what customs arrangements we will have and what the permits are for road haulage, we will be in the same position as we are in now.”
Only last week, after a meeting between the haulage industry and Michael Gove, the Road Haulage Association said that there has been “no clarity” on how border checks will operate once the transition period ends after December. The Freight Transport Association expressed similar frustrations.
The report addresses not only road haulage but also bus and coach travel, private drivers, vehicle standards, rail and maritime transport. I will address each of these modes in turn and then put some questions to the Minister.
I turn first to road haulage. The EU has a liberalised single market framework for cross-border road haulage. Operators with a community licence may transport goods across, between and within other member states. Therefore, a haulier from one member state moving goods entirely within another is known as cabotage. The transport of goods between two member states by a non-resident haulier is known as cross trade. This is all made possible by the community licence system, which, of course, the UK will now be outside. The Government told us that 43% of international trips by UK hauliers involve an element of cross trade, cabotage or both. That said, UK hauliers are only part of the story: the EU and particular member states also have interests in aspects of UK cabotage and cross trade arrangements, and a trade-off between these interests in a future haulage agreement could benefit both sides—but we are nowhere near that.
The Minister said that we are looking for reciprocal arrangements, but we know that there are quite serious differences between the two sides. The UK negotiating position suggests that both sides should be entitled to provide services to, from and through each other’s territories with no quantitative restrictions. However, the EU negotiating position on open market access for road freight transport is that UK hauliers should not be granted the same level of rights and benefits as those enjoyed by EU hauliers in respect of cross trade and cabotage. Clearly, any form of reciprocity, even if we get an agreement, is not going to be the same as “carry on as usual”. Without an agreement on UK-EU haulage arrangements, hauliers moving between the UK and EU would need to rely on the European Conference of Ministers of Transport—ECMT—permits, which are much more restrictive and very limited in number or, possibly, on the revival of historic bilateral agreements from individual member states.
Therefore, what can the Minister tell us about how much progress has been made in the negotiations or other arrangements for road haulage? Does the Minister agree that if no deal is found, the number of available ECMT permits will be vastly outstripped by demand from UK-based hauliers? Is it true that demand exceeds likely supply by at least four to one? Can and will this shortfall be addressed by other arrangements? When we faced the possibility of no deal, the EU had agreed a short-term contingency arrangement that would operate for a period of months. Is that contingency arrangement still on the table or do we have a new one? If not, do the Government intend to revive historic bilateral haulage agreements with individual member states, or is some other multilateral form of conference envisaged? Even if there were an agreement on no tariffs between the UK and the EU, and no quantitative restrictions, the EU would require new administrative procedures and there would be checks at our ports. Last week, after their meeting with Ministers, the RHA and the FTA claimed that the proposed electronic system will be ready to be put into operation from January. Can the Minister tell us whether that is true?
We have to face facts: extra checks and regulatory procedures will cause delays. What is the Minister’s current assumption about the slow-down of traffic through Dover and the effects of back-up and long traffic jams on Kent roads? The Government clearly anticipate this log-jam. Can the Minister tell us how much new lorry parking space is demarcated in Kent and back to the M25? Is it true that a designated Covid test centre near Ebbsfleet has just been requisitioned for a lorry park?
Of course, we must recognise that this is not a matter for just the road haulage sector. The whole of our food supply sector, the manufacturing industry’s dependence on integrated component transfer between different countries, and the supply of medicines and chemicals are all largely dependent on the just-in-time delivery ability of our road haulage sector. Therefore, there are a lot of questions on road haulage, none of which seem to have been answered effectively.
Briefly, on the bus and coach transport aspects, the UK’s accession to the Interbus agreement—a multilateral treaty for passenger transport, which includes the EU—would, for the most part, ensure the continuation of cross-channel ships without any great difficulty. However, it is currently limited to one-off, occasional journeys such as coach holidays or school trips and does not include regular, scheduled services or transit through non-contracting parties, such as Switzerland. The limitations of the Interbus agreement will have a particularly critical impact on the island of Ireland. The Government’s negotiating intention seems to be to secure continued connectivity for commercial passenger transport, but it is also clear that Monsieur Barnier’s mandate only affects the use of Interbus. Will the Minister tell us whether cross-channel bus and coach transport is likely to be limited to arrangements under the Interbus agreement? Has any further progress been made on the extension of Interbus to include regular and special regular services?
There is also the issue of private motorists, which does not seem to be covered in the Government’s negotiating document, issued last February. EU arrangements provide for the mutual recognition of driving licences and drivers from EU member states, so that they do not need to carry proof of third-party insurance cover or have any other requirements while driving in the EU. Without similar successor arrangements, UK drivers wishing to drive in the EU will need to carry an international driving permit and a green card as proof of insurance. Do the Government expect to reach an agreement with the EU on mutual recognition of driving licences? On the insurance side, will the Minister confirm whether the UK will be part of the green card-free circulation as of 1 January 2021?
We also touched on the issue of vehicle standards. The Government’s negotiating objectives speak of type approvals based on UN regulations as well as co-operation mechanisms to address regulatory barriers. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government seek to achieve mutual recognition of type approval for whole vehicles, and, if so, whether this objective is shared by the EU?
On rail, the Government’s negotiating document makes no mention of it. Indeed, it was made clear from the outset that there would be no comprehensive rail agreement with the EU: instead, a bilateral approach would be taken with Ireland, France, Belgium and the Netherlands to maintain existing international services. Will the Minister tell us how that is going? Can we be assured that the necessary bilateral arrangements will be in place by 1 January? While the Government’s approach to the implications of Brexit for the rail industry focuses on the maintenance of cross-border passenger and freight services, our report sets out that our rail industry’s interactions with the EU are more wide-ranging. Indeed, UK and EU operators, manufacturers and drivers access each other’s markets to mutual benefit. Witnesses told us that south of Derby, almost half of the rail supply industry workforce is from the EU. Therefore, do the Government see any need for maintaining mutual market access for operators, manufacturers and drivers beyond what can be achieved through a limited number of bilateral agreements? At this point, I note—slightly more positively—that while the UK has been active in the development of common standards in the rail sector, this was one area where the inquiry witnesses saw some potential opportunities for divergence from the EU which would meet more local conditions on our domestic routes.
Turning to maritime issues, maritime is, of course, largely liberalised and dependent on international standards. However, we were struck by the failure to mention the European Maritime Safety Agency in the Government’s position, despite the fact that that was one of the objectives agreed to in the political declaration. The more recent negotiating agreement makes no reference to the EMSA co-operation. Can the Minister confirm that the necessary preparations have taken place for UK authorities to have access to safety, security and environmental information formerly provided by EMSA when we pass beyond 1 January?
We devoted a significant part of our report to the situation on the island of Ireland. That has now been overtaken by the bigger, controversial issues relating to movements across the border and between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so I will not go into that in great detail today except to emphasise that one of the most detrimental effects of Brexit will be on the Republic of Ireland. We need to ensure that those relationships with our nearest neighbour are dealt with properly. Do the Government think that they will reach an agreement specific to Irish trade with the EU or will we have another bilateral agreement with the Irish Republic?
In summary, we have inched toward a bit of an understanding of what some aspects of UK-EU service transport will look like in just over three months’ time. However, the industry itself says that that is not enough. Our hauliers in particular, and those who rely on cross-border bus services, are in the dark. My final question for the Minister is: if a free trade agreement with the EU does not emerge—which will now have to be by the end of October—will the earlier contingency arrangements that were proposed by the EU operate for a few months? In other words, are we not faced with an immediate cliff edge? If they do not operate, do the Government intend to put in place any contingency measures themselves to buffer the market access and to ensure some smoothness of transfer into the EU, which will benefit not only our haulage industry but much of our manufacturing and food-supply sectors? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome the detailed response given by the Minister and thank everybody who took part in this debate. However, the response still leaves a significant number of questions open, and I will just comment on two or three things.
The main problem is focused on road haulage. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, rightly admonished me by saying that there were vitally important bits of the maritime sector which were, themselves, part of the system for road haulage, particularly in respect of the ro-ro arrangements at Dover. That is our biggest problem, although it is not our only problem, and I still do not think that we have had a clear indication for the industry. I appreciate, having been a Transport Minister myself, the Minister’s reference to hauliers not lobbying subtly. That is certainly true, but sometimes that is understandable. They do not feel that they have yet got sufficient assurances that the outcome from the Government is actually going to be clear. I am not sure that the Minister is actually yet in a position to give them that assurance. I hope that she is right about the electronic system, which does, of course, require haulage companies to have prepared their drivers for it, as well as the Government to have completed the testing of the system themselves. Normally, that is a familiarisation process that itself takes a significant amount of time, but it effectively has not started yet.
One problem of this report is that we were slightly more optimistic at that time than perhaps some of us are now. We thought it was highly probable that, by now, there would be a free trade agreement, which would mean that there were no tariffs. Clearly, if there are tariffs, that complicates matters considerably, and the amount of regulation and potential delay at ports increases significantly. We also thought—at least I did; I do not necessarily speak for everyone—that there would be quite quick side-agreements on transport matters, which are effectively technical matters on which we could have reached agreement. I appreciate that these discussions are still going on, and have gone on for some time, but that is not the reassurance that the haulage sector in particular requires. Of course, when I talk about the haulage sector, I would not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that trade will adapt. Of course it will; there will be different patterns of trade. However, there is a cost to be absorbed here, and that cost will be faced not only by the haulage industry itself but also by consumers at the end of the line and by key parts of British manufacturing industry, which are part of an integrated European production line. There will be a serious knock-on effect of any failure to deliver effective systems for road haulage and related sectors.
I thank everybody who has taken part. I apologise to my noble friend Lady Ritchie for not spending more time discussing the island of Ireland. That is part of a bigger problem, which I am sure your Lordships’ House will have to address shortly. The impact of Brexit on both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in terms of their trade systems will be an important dimension.
Other things are still not clear, from driving licences through to the way in which the railway system will treat passengers who come off on either side of the channel. We have not really talked much about passenger rights and experience, but that is another dimension on which the Government will have to seek some degree of clarity before we move into a new situation beyond 1 January.
I thank the Minister and, as I should have said earlier, thank her department for producing a detailed response very quickly, unlike some departments in respect of Brexit reports from the EU Select Committee. It takes the work of the Select Committees seriously, and I appreciate that the Minister has done so today. However, we are still short of some answers, and time is running out. In one form or another, the House, as well as the Government and the industry, will need to return to these issues. Meanwhile, I thank everybody who took part, particularly the Minister, for their contributions, and I beg to move.
International Travel
Lord Whitty Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I associate myself with other noble Lords calling for proper provisions for the aviation and aerospace sector. These latest constraints will sadly affect it. Does the Minister not agree that effective testing at airports, plus a follow-up a week later, would catch most cases coming into the country, and that this would be far more enforceable than 14-days’ quarantine for everybody who comes into our country?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree that if we could assure ourselves that that sort of regime would work, we would put it in place. But as I have said in response to previous questions, this work is ongoing, and we will not put anything in place unless we are sure that what we are putting in place will work.