Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Whitty and Earl Attlee

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

I think it was really good that we had the benefit of a pep talk from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who is on the Woolsack as we speak, because I can correct the noble Lord on a material point: my point was that it is not essential to have a registration scheme if you want to have a testing scheme, even for light freight. Even now we have a testing scheme for HGV trailers but we do not have a registration scheme. It does not mean that I do not think it is important; it is just that it is not necessary to have a registration scheme.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I too was not going to intervene in this debate but one additional point occurs to me that the noble Baroness might like to take note of. To make the point I have to declare an interest: I am chair of the Road Safety Foundation and of an organisation called EASST, which deals with projects on road safety—roads and vehicles—in eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Asia. My point is that Britain has often led the way in road safety. Statistics are difficult to come by, but anecdotally the number of problems with trailers in developing countries with inadequate road systems in central Asia and even in eastern Europe is quite substantial.

We have heard of horrific cases here from my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, but there are equally horrific anecdotal cases from other countries. Given the respect in which Britain’s road safety expertise is held around the world, a report of the kind that my noble friend’s amendment calls for could well influence global road safety and therefore be a contribution from the DfT to the new global Britain, and could be presented that way to otherwise reluctant colleagues in the House of Commons who might not accept simply another report. It is important that we maintain that lead on road safety and this is one area which, to my knowledge, has not been systematically addressed in the international road safety community.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Whitty and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, most has already been said by my colleagues on the Front Bench. This clause sticks out like a sore thumb and goes against the rest of the Bill and any commitment to localism. It undermines the rest of the Bill, which essentially gives local authorities a range of options in how to optimise the bus services in their area—urban and rural. There are many circumstances in which the provision, in partnership or directly, of a municipally owned bus fleet could play a part. If that is closed off by keeping this clause in the Bill, we will be undermining the consensus behind most of its provisions. The Minister ought to take this back to his colleagues because it will be an issue of contention in the Bill’s later stages, and is already an area of extreme contention with many local authorities and bus operators around the country. It would be wise to listen to the Committee—to speakers on this side, at any rate—and withdraw the clause, preferably before Report.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I very much support the inclusion of Clause 21 in the Bill, so I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness in seeking its removal.

Municipal bus companies—to be honest, there are only a few—served a very useful purpose prior to the deregulation of the market. Among those remaining in existence, there are indeed some great operators. Reading Buses and Nottingham City Transport, for example, consistently provide excellent services and win award after award. I hope that I am not doing others a disservice by not specifically mentioning their hard work and achievements. I agree with some of the compliments paid to these operators by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

I know that the mood music surrounding this clause has caused some concerns about the future existence of the remaining local authority-owned companies. This is simply extremely unhelpful and unfortunate. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will state very firmly that those existing companies have nothing to fear and that he will be able to reassure them and the Committee that there is nothing in this Bill that threatens their existence.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked, “What is wrong?”. In the case of a local authority looking to go down the franchise route, the authority invites a bid for the contract. Its own company submits a bid—it would be rather odd if it did not. Preparing bids is an expensive and time-consuming business. So who has paid for the local authority-owned company to bid? Yes, the local authority that owns it. Would the local authority award the contract to the company it owns? You bet it would. Otherwise it would put its own company out of business. To me this all smells of state aid.

So again we are back to fairness and level playing fields. Allowing a franchise authority to create its own company, which would then bid and win that franchise, almost by the back door, is simply wrong. My counsel is that Clause 21 should stand part of the Bill.

Police: Performance Indicator Management

Debate between Lord Whitty and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I will make one or two of the same points as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Unlike some other Members who are going to speak today, I do not have great experience or expertise in this field. With one or two exceptions, my relationship with the police has been generally okay. I am merely a concerned citizen here, in that I really want to know what is happening to crime in this country. Politically, both this and the previous Government congratulated themselves on a falling level of crime. I did not seriously query this claim until recently.

Of course, government and police claims of crime reduction have always been treated with a degree of cynicism by the general public. Public perception of crime rates in all neighbourhoods tends to exaggerate the degree of actual crime. Of course, there are horrendous crimes, which receive massive publicity. Although harrowing to those immediately concerned, as I know, these are probably not typical. There is a general public perception that the level of particularly low-level crime is higher than the police and the Government claim.

Sometimes the police go over the top. I am told that the South Wales Police notepaper says that crime is the lowest for the past 30 years. I doubt that anybody in south Wales actually believes that—nor would people in Dorset or the City of Westminster. There is a credibility issue underlying this, and some of it has a good statistical basis because of the way in which the police record crime as against, for example, the crime survey and the way that victims see their complaints. So there are some rational explanations for it.

However, I was quite alarmed to see that the ONS itself was seriously querying the degree of crime reduction. That is probably where I am. I probably logically accept, despite the psychology of it, that there has been some reduction, but it is the degree. There was quite a significant difference between the police figures and the other figures to which the ONS referred. The ONS gave a number of quite good reasons for this but at the same time I became aware of the work of Dr Rodger Patrick, to whom the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has already referred.

According to Dr Patrick’s analysis, some crimes are no longer recorded on the basis of reporting by victims or the public but on the evidential assessment of police officers and on the balance of probability. That was always the case with third party reporting but used not to be the case where victims themselves reported. Other cases are lumped together and given the same crime number to appear only once in the statistics. Minor crimes can go unreported altogether: some are on a local crime data list; some are subject to informal caution and are cleared, one way or another, and do not get into the national statistics.

Meanwhile, on the detection side, issues such as “take into consideration cases”, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred, are sometimes lumped together as solved or cleared as a result of a deal with a defendant or prisoner, without real conviction and due process. I have read parts of Dr Patrick’s analysis, and I have no way in which to assess the validity of all this or how widespread it is. But it is also true—and this is in the title of the debate—that with some crimes under the last Government there was a drastic fall, following the introduction of targets and performance management criteria. That might mean different things: it might suggest that the target culture was instantly incredibly successful in increasing overall efficiency against targets; it might suggest that the priorities and resources were, as in other public services, concentrated on those areas that were measured and defined as targets while other areas were left underresourced; or it might mean—and this is something that we regrettably know about in bits of the NHS—that figures were reclassified or manipulated to exaggerate performance improvement.

What we need to know from the Minister tonight is two-fold. Does he recognise the figures on descriptions of malpractices in individual police forces to which the noble Earl referred? What arrangements for quality control and challenge of statistics coming from individual police forces are there in England and Wales? Secondly, I recognise that the Home Office and the ONS give guidance to the police on how to record crime, but who checks the compliance? Is it the police authority, the new police commissioners or the Inspectorate of Constabulary? What is the role of the Police Support Unit—or is it the ACPO high command, or the Home Office itself? How does it work and, in particular, how far is it guided, checked and quality controlled by non-police bodies, or is the guidance and advice from ACPO to chief officers dominant? Like the noble Earl, I have some concerns about the role of ACPO in this area.

There are also reports that those who query the current system, whether from within the police force, from community bodies or even from the Home Office, suffer repercussions—they have been victimised or moved to other duties. Is the Minister aware of such allegations, and what would he instruct the Home Office to do about such allegations? I have to phrase this in the form of questions, partly because of the difficulty of proof and partly, frankly, because of the litigiousness of some of those who defend their position. But these are questions that the Ministers in the Home Office and, perhaps, the Ministry of Justice, need to ask.

The present Secretary of State has made two key decisions in relation to crime statistics and performance. First, she transferred responsibility for oversight and reporting of crime statistics after 2011 from the Home Office to the ONS. That is a very sensible move, which will probably pay off in the long run. However, the ONS analysis is only as good as the statistics that come in. Unless we can improve the accuracy and integrity of all sources of information and eliminate natural bias and contrived distortions, the ONS and Ministers will still be working on flawed systems of statistical records, and hence a flawed evidence base. Secondly, the Home Secretary determined that the police service should move away from target-based performance indicators and, in the light of experience, we would probably think that was the right move as well. But local commissioners will still need authentic, undistorted statistics on which to make their decisions. If not, we are going to end up in the worst of possible worlds, where there are no performance targets, but the police go on recording the same statistics in the same way.

It is time that we had a proper analysis of this—the review by the ONS goes just so far. But as the noble Earl said, unless we are confident in the statistics that we receive, bad statistics will distort the basis for operational decisions by chief officers and strategic decisions by police commissioners and distort the very basis on which Home Office Ministers and officials make national policy in England and Wales. We need a new, expert review, probably judge-led, without an axe to grind, distinct and separate from the police force itself, and we need it soon.

[Earl Attlee]

Can the noble Lord conclude his remarks very soon, because he is completely out of time?

[Lord Whitty]

If I am completely out of time, I shall just say that a push for such an outcome needs to start from the proceedings here today.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation

Debate between Lord Whitty and Earl Attlee

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend is largely right. That is why fuels derived from waste products get two renewable transport fuel certificates, whereas short rotation first generation crops get only one certificate. However, there is a difficulty and the policy needs to be designed so we do not get indirect land use change problems. My honourable friend Mr Norman Baker is working closely with the European Union to get a solution to that problem.

[Lord Whitty]

I understand this global concern about using what was previously food production land for biofuels. However, when we first proposed the obligation, about 50% of the market was expected to be met from waste using the kind of operation that my noble friend Lord Kennedy is concerned about. There is also the separate problem that British Sugar has planted new land and made a substantial investment. If we renege on or reduce the obligation, it will not bring any return to a major investor in some of our important rural areas.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Whitty and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradshaw]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said. There is certainly scope for economy. I did not agree with the previous Government’s decision to transfer protection of bus and coach passengers to the Rail Passengers’ Council. However, the work of the council is concentrated mainly on issues such as punctuality. It has produced extremely good reports on things that irritate users such as huge queues at booking offices and the way in which ticket machines baffle many users and often do not work. These issues are important to people and I cannot think who will regulate them for less money. Transferring the functions to the Office of Rail Regulation, which is full of lawyers, will raise the cost of doing this work.

I will say one further thing in defence of Passenger Focus. It has developed a system of statistical analysis by which it can take very little in the way of raw information and turn it into statistically robust results. I am all in favour of economy, but I am also in favour of having a body to look after the interests of passengers that is functional and that rests on a secure base. I and most passengers would regret anything that abolished this body.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did not move his amendment, so it is a great pleasure for me to respond to him. He and I have debated together over many years. He has accepted some of my amendments and taken others away. It is a great pleasure to continue our debate, albeit with our roles reversed.

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to remove Passenger Focus from Schedule 5 to the Bill. The appearance in the Bill of Passenger Focus does not reflect the view that the interests of passengers are unimportant. We are clear that passengers are the only reason why we run a public transport system. This was reflected in the public bodies review, which concluded that Passenger Focus should be retained but substantially reformed to focus on the core role of protecting passengers, thereby allowing a reduction in the cost to the taxpayer.

Noble Lords may see this as a first step towards cutting the budget of Passenger Focus to the point where it is no longer capable of being an effective voice for passengers. I reassure them that this is not the case. We fully accept the need for a powerful and effective passenger advocate. This is reinforced by EU provisions that require us to have a properly independent complaints body to which rail passengers can turn. Passenger Focus plays that role.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether this was not simply an opportunity to weaken and abolish a body that has been critical of the Government in the past. The answer is no. We want to maintain an effective passenger advocate because that is the best way of ensuring that transport operators are held properly to account. This is an effective opportunity to ensure that that role is performed in a robust and cost-effective way.

The Government had originally listed Passenger Focus in Schedule 5 to enable possible changes to its functions. Further work and our discussions with Passenger Focus have clarified that we can significantly reduce the cost to the taxpayer without recourse to legislative change through Schedule 5. For example, efficiencies can be derived by reducing the scope of Passenger Focus’s research and survey work. My noble friend Lord Taylor has added his name to Amendment 98 on that basis to support the removal of Passenger Focus from Schedule 5, which we hope will be welcomed by the Committee. However, the governance changes that we intend require its inclusion in Schedule 3, so we cannot support Amendment 75, which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was unable to move on Monday. Amendment 160A, which would remove Passenger Focus from Schedule 7, is effectively redundant in the light of the Government’s decision to remove Schedule 7 from the Bill.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee and the noble Lord that we are not planning to leave passengers without proper protection and I hope that the Committee will accept Amendment 98.

[Lord Whitty]

I am not sure that it is in order for me to reply, given that my noble friend moved the amendment. However, I am grateful for some of those reassurances about the future of Passenger Focus. It would be helpful if we could be told the nature of the changes in governance that the Government propose, but perhaps that is for another day. However, I think that the body’s removal from this schedule is important. The noble Earl was probably not in a position to reply to my other points, which concerned the broader landscape of consumer representation.

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord asked what reforms we plan under Schedule 3. That schedule can be used to implement changes to the make-up and composition of the Passenger Focus board. Although the details are still to be finalised, the intention is to streamline the board’s operation significantly, which will also result in significant cost reductions.

[Lord Whitty]

I thank the noble Earl. Of course, some of the make-up of the board reflects the structure of the railway industry and the structure of the company. I hope that we will not lose that geographical dimension in changing its composition. I accept what the noble Earl says in relation to Passenger Focus. Clearly, I am grateful for his support for the amendment, although I think that we will have to return to the wider issue of the consumer landscape as a whole either in this Bill or in some other context in this House.