Operation of Air Services (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Operation of Air Services (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1632).

These regulations are made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the instrument applies to the United Kingdom. The regulations ensure that EU regulation 1008/2008 on common rules for the operation of air services continues to function correctly in UK law after the transition period. They do so by amending the Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. The need for today’s SI has arisen because the EU amended regulation 1008/2008 after the 2018 regulations were made.

In May last year, EU regulation 2020/696 inserted provisions into regulation 1008/2008 to address problems caused by the slump in air passengers resulting from the covid-19 pandemic. It also inserted powers for the Commission to extend the new provisions by delegated acts. The Commission used those powers and made further amendments to the regulation via two delegated regulations adopted on 16 December 2020, which extended two of the new provisions until the end of 2021, rather than them expiring at the end of 2020.

The extended provisions allow airlines in financial difficulty to retain their operating licences, subject to certain conditions, and allow airports to urgently replace ground handling providers, should they suddenly cease trading. I will describe those provisions in more detail shortly.

The SI was made using the made affirmative procedure as the only means to bring it into force before the end of the transition period while ensuring parliamentary scrutiny. As I have noted, the most recent EU amendments were not adopted until 16 December. Only then was it possible to determine the precise content of this SI. The SI was laid before the House on 23 December, the earliest opportunity after the Commission’s adoption of the delegated regulations.

The first of the two provisions concerns air carrier licensing. Regulation 1008/2008 requires the Civil Aviation Authority to revoke or suspend the operating licence of an air carrier in financial difficulty and replace it with a temporary licence, but such action risks the integrity of the air carrier in the eyes of investors and customers, raising concerns about its viability. Normally, such actions are justified to tightly regulate carriers in financial difficulty, but during the covid-19 pandemic, all air carriers have suffered significant decreases in revenues, and a more flexible response is required.

Regulation 2020/696 inserted a new provision allowing regulators not to revoke or suspend operating licences where the carrier is in financial difficulty, providing a financial assessment is undertaken, safety is not at risk and there is a realistic prospect of financial reconstruction within 12 months.

The second extended provision concerns ground handling. Where a ground handler has ceased trading before the end of its contract, the new provision allows airports to choose a new provider directly for a limited period rather than undertaking a tender process. Reduced demand increases the risk of sudden failure of ground handling companies. The new provision ensures minimal disruption at airports. References to the ground handling directive are replaced by reference to the Airports (Groundhandling) Regulations 1997, which transpose the directive. Provisions relating to the Commission’s delegated powers are revoked, because they are no longer relevant to the UK.

This SI demonstrates that the Government are committed to ensuring a fully functioning regulatory framework for the aviation industry. The impacts of the pandemic will continue for some time to come, and the provisions that I have described provide the Civil Aviation Authority and airports with additional flexibility to respond. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the Committee for its consideration of the regulations. He put on record his thanks to the aviation sector, and I wish to associate myself with those comments. We all want a thriving aviation sector. This is part of our response to enable the sector to blossom throughout the pandemic.

It is the duty of a responsible Government to ensure that our statute book continues to function correctly after the end of the transition period, and that is exactly what the instrument will do. These regulations will make the changes necessary to ensure that the provisions of retained regulation 1008/2008 continue to function properly following the end of the transition period. They provide additional temporary flexibilities in responding to licensing issues, where airlines face financial difficulty and where airports need to urgently replace ground handling providers.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about support for the sector, he will know that the airport and ground operation support scheme, announced on 24 November, will provide support for eligible businesses, subject to certain conditions and a cap per applicant of £8 million. The Department recognises the severe impact that covid-19 has had on travel. Work continues in order to understand how best industry can be supported now and in the future, as we hopefully emerge from the pandemic. I thank the Committee and hope Members will join me in supporting these regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Future of the Coach Industry

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this vital debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. We have heard a vast number of contributions, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), for Henley (John Howell), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), for Halton (Derek Twigg), for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). I think it is crystal clear that there is a strength of feeling in the Chamber today from all parts of the country on this vital issue. We have heard many eloquently expressed, first-hand stories from Members explaining the impact of the pandemic on their constituents and the businesses they run.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to assure Members that the Government are absolutely committed to the future of the coach industry. Members have made clear to the Government—to me as a Minister and to other Ministers responsible for these decisions—the strength of feeling on this matter. We have heard it very clearly. Members have set out the vital role that coach companies play in their communities and constituencies. We have heard time and again that these are small, hard-working family businesses. As many Members said, these constituents had not darkened their doors—I did not want to use that phrase, but that is how Members described some of the people they talked about today. They are hard-working people who have not turned to their MPs before. Of course, as an MP myself, I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue.

I will come to the points that Members have raised. I want to respond to a specific point from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley about the public service vehicle accessibility regulations, which others also raised. I will ask my noble Friend in the other place to come back to him on that specific point. I want to reassure Members that all the proposals that have been presented on behalf of their constituents are being carefully considered by Ministers.

We have discussed at length the future of this industry. It is my belief that it continues to have an important role to play and I see no reason why it cannot have a bright and prosperous future. It is a resilient and diverse sector, and its contribution to our leisure, tourism, public and home-to-school transport systems is long standing and vital.

Normally, coach operators up and down the country are connecting people every day of the year. Members have referred to numerous small, family-run businesses in their constituencies. Whether it is a tour to Blackpool or a coach package ticket to the Glastonbury festival, coaches have played a huge part in opening up all parts of the UK and enriching all our lives.

Of course, 2020 has been very different. This year, the covid-19 pandemic and the necessary national and local restrictions to protect public health that have come with it, have taken many of these experiences away from us. With people necessarily spending so much of 2020 undertaking only essential journeys, demand for coach services has reduced dramatically.

I know that, as a result, this year has represented an unprecedented challenge for all coach operators. In these difficult times, the Government’s commitment to supporting businesses cannot be questioned. Many Members discussed this and recognised that fact. Since the onset of the pandemic in the spring, we have paid wages through the job retention scheme and supported the incomes of self-employed workers. We have also provided significant support in the form of loans and grants. Coach operators have been able to apply for the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme.

[Emma Hardy]

I want to reinforce a couple of points. First, coach companies are telling me there is a high chance that their businesses will end before the furlough scheme runs out. Although the scheme has been welcomed, it is not going to be the answer if the business no longer exists. Secondly, in contributions from Members across the Chamber, it was reiterated that only 20% of businesses were able to access the coronavirus business interruption loans. The majority of coach companies have not been able to access that fund.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for those points. I recognised and heard the points that she and others raised. It is important to recognise the amount of support that has gone to those businesses, although I accept that many have not been able to access the support. However, a significant amount of support has been made available. On her point about the furlough scheme, she will know that the Chancellor extended it at a number of points when the public health situation required it. All the measures are kept under constant review.

We have had a number of schemes, including the coronavirus bounce back loan scheme. Of course, the Government have also extended guidance for local authorities on administering business rate relief. Eligible businesses will not have to pay business rates for the year 2020-21—that list of businesses could and does include coach operators—and it is for local authorities to determine which businesses are eligible.

[Alan Brown]

As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) said in her intervention, the furlough scheme and the business rate relief are welcome, but the Confederation of Passenger Transport reckons that it costs something like £200 a day for a bus just to sit in a yard. Those are the kinds of overheads that we are talking about. Even businesses that have access to CBILS, which is a loan and a debt that must be repaid, are looking for grants. The CPT estimates that £50 a day per coach would be enough for those coach companies to survive. We are looking for responses to those asks.

[Rachel Maclean]

I recognise and understand the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised about the specific business conditions and challenges that coach companies face. As he will know, all the measures are kept under review by the Chancellor, responding to the evolving course of the pandemic across the country. I will come to the CPT later in my remarks.

The diversity of the coach industry is such that different operators have been eligible for different types of support. There was never going to be a one-size-fits-all package for the sector. My colleagues in Government have worked closely with coach operators to understand the issues that they have faced in accessing particular schemes, which hon. Members have mentioned, As a result of that, a support finder tool has been developed to help businesses quickly and easily determine what financial support is available to them.

We kept in mind throughout that the key to the recovery and the future of the coach industry is reopening business and generating demand across the economy. I know that all hon. Members will welcome the positive news about vaccines; mass immunisation means that we are getting ever closer to being able to lift the tough but necessary restrictions. That will create opportunities and further open up the economy, which will, in turn, help to generate demand.

[Emma Hardy]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. She says that the industry is viable with a successful future—I am sure everyone in the Chamber agrees with that—but I really want her to take on board the point about the coach companies’ overhead costs. The cost of a new coach is about £250,000. The coach companies were told that those were the coaches that they needed to buy because they were greener and more environmentally friendly, and they still have those bills to pay. One way in which the Government could make a real difference to those companies would be by looking at their finance problems. Those are the kinds of answers that the industry wishes to hear. As so many hon. Members have said, those companies have, so far, fallen through gaps in the support that the Minister has mentioned. They need something else.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for eloquently setting out the issues—I absolutely understand her points. I will speak a bit more about the way in which we are working with the coach sector.

Obviously, I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle about wanting to get the coach sector back up and running. We believe that demand in the economy is what is needed to help the sector. When there have been safe and viable opportunities to create that demand, we have utilised them. In the autumn, the Government committed more than £70 million of funding to ensure that the coach industry could maximise the potential of the full return to education, and an additional £27 million has been allocated for the spring term. As more vehicles are needed compared with previous years, that funding has provided additional dedicated school and college capacity in our transport system, including coaches, to combat reduced demand on existing public transport.

As hon. Members will know, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the lead Department for tourism and leisure. It is now considering how the new global travel taskforce might help to remove barriers to international travel, and potential event opportunities for the coach sector. As many hon. Members have pointed out, that is one of the main sources of revenue for the sector.

Going forward, we will continue in the vein of our flexible and adaptable response to the pandemic, keeping all current support under review while exploring opportunities to aid long-term recovery. One of those opportunities was the student travel window; we worked with the Department for Education to encourage students to plan their return journeys from universities carefully and to buy tickets in advance.

I want to be clear with Members that this has been an unprecedented global crisis; none of us could have predicted the scale of the challenges. The Chancellor has stated that in his view it is not possible to preserve every job and every business, and I do not ever underestimate the impact on anybody of these types of circumstances, which have hit us all out of the blue. This is something that the Government take incredibly seriously and my ministerial colleagues have met individual coach operators and heard from them directly. We are well aware of the impact on the sector and on people’s jobs and businesses, which they have built up over many generations. We never underestimate the impact on our constituents’ lives and livelihoods.

We continue to work closely with the CPT. As many Members have said, this organisation has been very helpful in representing its members to Government, so we have a good understanding of the challenges that the industry faces.

[Dave Doogan]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous. I am conscious—indeed, concerned—that she seems to be getting to the end of her summing-up, and I am also very conscious that the CPT and many of its members are watching this debate. It would be very helpful if we could get clarity on whether the Government will support the English sector with money that will provide consequentials for the devolved Administrations.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much indeed, and if the CPT is watching this debate, I want to say to it that we are grateful for its work. We work closely together, so it will know that my colleagues have had a number of discussions with people in the sector and with the CPT itself, and we will continue to have those discussions. We keep under close review all the measures we provide, not just for this sector but across the economy.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

With the greatest respect, I do not think I can, because I need to get to the end of my speech and I think I need to allow time at the end. Do I have time, Dr Huq, for another intervention?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

To be honest, because we have stretched the time and everyone was so restricted in their remarks, I think we have time.

[Rachel Maclean]

Then of course I will give way.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I do not mean to eat into the time left for the hon. Member for Easington, but I just want to make the point about the economic viability of these businesses. The fact is that if we support them now, it will pay dividends long into the future. I appreciate the level of support that has been given, which really makes a huge difference to all those sectors that pay so much into the Treasury, but action now will help us to bounce back quicker.

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend makes that point incredibly well, and it is the thinking behind all the support that has been given, is being given now and that will be given in the future, because we want all these businesses to come back in the future. Also, we absolutely want them to come back in a green and decarbonised way. Many Members referred to that point, which is at the heart of the Government’s agenda in the transport sector more broadly. However, I will come to my concluding remarks and allow the hon. Member for Easington to come in.

This has been a year like no other, and I thank all the transport workers in the coach sector, who have shown remarkable resilience over the last 10 months, and I hope and believe—as I am sure that everybody does—that 2021 will be different from 2020. I am encouraged by developments in the production of vaccines against covid-19. There are no certainties associated with that process, but it seems that there may be some light at the end of the tunnel.

In the meantime, I assure anybody who is watching this debate, and of course people in the Chamber, that we will continue to work with the coach sector. We will continue those conversations; this is not the end of them. We want to understand and provide the best available support that is necessary.

As we have discussed, we have an ambitious and achievable long-term environmental plan to deliver on greening our transport sector and reducing and removing vehicle emissions, and the coach industry is a very important part of that plan.

I want to reassure coach operators and their employees, and all hon. Members present here in Westminster Hall today, that we remain committed to safeguarding the future of the coach industry. I know that the concerns that have been raised today are being heard by Ministers, by the Chancellor and by Members across Government.

Draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2020

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2020.

The draft order will amend the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007, which provides for a certificate scheme commonly known as the RTFO. The draft order will increase the support available to the supply of biofuels by increasing the buy-out price from 30p per litre to 50p pence per litre. That figure is used to calculate any buy-out payment due under the RTFO certificate trading scheme. The change is crucial so that we have a strong UK market for renewable fuels and reduce transport carbon emissions.

The RTFO establishes targets to drive the supply of renewable fuels by placing obligations on larger suppliers of fuel to ensure that supply. The amount of renewable fuel that must be supplied is calculated as a percentage of the volume of relevant fossil fuel supplied in a calendar year. This obligational level—or target—has increased over time; it is currently 9.75%. The target gradually increases until 2032, at which point, without further legislation, the yearly target would be 12.4% in each subsequent year.

The 2007 order also provides for a certificate trading scheme that supports a market for renewable fuels. Under the scheme, obligated fuel suppliers must acquire sufficient renewable transport fuels certificates to meet their obligation, either by supplying renewable fuels or by purchasing certificates on the open market. Alternatively, they can make a buy-out payment. It is the buy-out option, and increasing its price, that the draft order deals with.

The ability of suppliers to pay a buy-out price acts as a safety valve. It protects consumers of fuel from exceptional spikes in the price of renewable fuels. However, in normal market conditions, the continuing success of the RTFO scheme depends upon renewable fuel being supplied. Biofuels remain the main type of renewable fuel supplied under the RTFO. Recent increases in the cost of biofuels relative to petrol and diesel mean that there is a potential sustained commercial incentive for suppliers to buy out. Any reduction in biofuel supply will affect greenhouse gas emission savings from transport fuels, which poses the risk that there will be a gap in UK carbon budgets. It also risks damaging our biofuels industry and the future investments that are needed to keep us on the path to net zero.

The RTFO applies UK-wide and has been highly successful for the past 12 years. In 2019, renewable fuel supplied under the scheme saved almost 5.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, which is the equivalent of taking 2.5 million combustion engine-powered cars off the road. Indeed, renewable fuel supplied under the RTFO currently contributes around a third of the savings required for the UK’s transport carbon budget. Clearly we need to ensure that the RTFO continues to provide effective market support.

The amendment made by the draft statutory instrument follows consultation in the summer, which proposed an increase in the buy-out price from 30p per litre to either 40p or 50p per litre. The vast majority of respondents agreed that there was an urgent need to increase the buy-out price. Some 45 respondents out of a total of 61 agreed with our preferred option to increase the buy-out price from 30p per litre to 50p per litre.

In proposing the change, we have carefully considered the balance of interests across the fuels industry, environmental organisations and consumers, recognising that the potential additional costs of meeting the RTFO would ultimately fall to the consumer, as well as the need to maintain a competitive biofuels market that is capable of driving reductions in carbon emissions. The increase in the buy-out price to 50p per litre strikes the right balance, so I commend the draft order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

This has been an incredibly useful discussion. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby for their contributions. With his considerable expertise, my right hon. Friend identified the importance of the industry and the potential that the Government have to support our home-grown British industry, which is exactly what we want to do.

My right hon. Friend and the hon. Lady asked about E10, and we are working hard to publish our response to the consultation on its introduction as soon as possible. I am aware of the industry’s keen interest in the matter. We anticipate that any requirement to introduce E10 would come into force in 2021. There would need to be a period of at least six months in advance of that introduction so that fuel suppliers and consumers could prepare for the change in grade. The experience of other countries suggests that a comprehensive communications campaign is crucial to any successful roll-out to ensure that motorists are well informed ahead of the change in grade. Should E10 be rolled out in the UK, I reassure those who are interested that we will remain committed to ensuring the retention of an E5 grade for those vehicles or equipment that cannot use petrol with high levels of ethanol.

I am delighted by the hon. Lady’s support for the statutory instrument, for which I thank her. She rightly referred to the transport decarbonisation plan that she and I have discussed on many occasions. It remains at the forefront of the Government’s efforts to decarbonise the entire sector. Regrettably, in the light of the covid pandemic, we have had to deal with very pressing public health issues, but that has not detracted from our intense work on the plan, which we will publish in spring next year.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Following my conversations with people in the sector, I am concerned that some companies, particularly those operating fleet vehicles or bus companies —I know that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has a company in his constituency that is keen to manufacture cleaner buses—have been so financially hit by covid that they have put their plans on hold, because it is not an ideal time for a company to upgrade its vehicles if it has not made a profit in the previous year. Will that affect what is in the decarbonisation plan?

[Rachel Maclean]

I do not want to stray too far from the statutory instrument, but the hon. Lady rightly raises very important questions. I will be happy to discuss that further with her, but I want to reassure her that our commitment remains. We work very closely with the sector, as she does, and we understand those natural concerns. Of course, the Government have supported the entire economy to the tune of at least £330 billion, which has gone to transport operators and many others. We recognise the challenges that operators face, but we nevertheless remain determined to decarbonise the transport sector.

The order makes a small but important amendment to ensure that the RTFO continues to support the renewable fuels industry as intended. We need the industry to drive down emissions in sectors that are harder to decarbonise, such as heavy goods vehicles and aviation, and to deliver the cleaner fuels that will play an even greater role in achieving our aim of a greener and more prosperous economy. I reassure members of the Committee that we have the most ambitious crop cap in Europe for fuel sources, which is 4% and will be decreasing to 2%. We have therefore taken note of the concerns that hon. Members have raised.

It is true that as we transition to zero emissions vehicles, we cannot ignore measures to reduce emissions from the conventional road vehicles in use today, particularly given the contribution of renewable fuels to meeting UK carbon budgets. We will be setting out in our transport decarbonisation plan more detail about the future of low-carbon fuels across transport modes, and that will be published in spring 2021.

The statutory instrument will change the RTFO buy-out price for the start of the next obligation year—1 January 2021. That timing is important so that we can provide certainty for fuel suppliers and minimise administrative costs. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the statutory instrument.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to (a) support people to switch to and (b) install the necessary infrastructure for electric vehicles by 2030.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

We are investing over £2.8 billion‎ to help people buy zero emission vehicles and accelerate the roll-out of charging infrastructure.

[Felicity Buchan]

My constituents in Kensington are largely very supportive of electric cars, but they are concerned about the lack of charging infrastructure. Would my hon. Friend consider mandating all new builds to have charging points, and encouraging all petrol stations and car parks to have them too?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am delighted to hear the support of my hon. Friend’s constituents in Kensington, which is shared of course by people across the UK. As ever, my hon. Friend is actually one step ahead of the Government. We are launching a consultation to improve drivers’ experience of using public charge points, and we will soon respond to the consultation on requiring new homes and non-residential properties to be fitted with charging infrastructure.

[Jo Gideon]

I am delighted to hear that Stoke-on-Trent’s £29 million transforming cities fund proposal has now been approved, and I want to thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for all the hard work they have done to help me, other local MPs and the city council to get this across the line. As I have said on many occasions, this will be a real game changer for public transport in our city. As we look to revolutionise the way we move around our city, does the Minister agree that it is right to look for investment from the active travel fund to complement bus and train travel with an e-bike hire system and to build a sustainable local network for charging electric vehicles?

[Rachel Maclean]

I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for e-bikes. I got one in the lockdown, and it is absolutely brilliant for the hills of Redditch. She will be pleased to hear that the Prime Minister’s cycling and walking plan includes a commitment to create a national e-cycle support programme. As part of this, we have launched a £1 million e-bike extension fund to enable the increased use of e-bikes, with a particular focus on those hard-to-reach groups, so I would encourage Stoke-on-Trent to consider making an application. As well as this, we are investing £1.3 billion across the country to accelerate the roll-out of charging infrastructure for her constituents.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

What support his Department is providing to hauliers in preparation for the end of the transition period.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

The Department is running a haulier readiness communications campaign and outreach programme, launching 45 information and advice sites, and producing a detailed haulier handbook, which has been translated into 13 languages.

[David Morris [V]]

The application for the free port of Heysham seems to be shrouded in mystery. Could the Department for Transport give me some indication on its progress at this moment in time?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent advocacy for this free port programme, which will be of great benefit, I have no doubt, to his constituents. Ports and local authorities are welcome to submit their bids for free ports, including for Heysham, until 5 February 2021, and specific locations will then be chosen according to a process, as set out in the bidding proposals, but I am sure that Ministers will be delighted to meet him to discuss this further.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

What steps he has taken to support the aviation sector to maintain employment levels during the covid-19 pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of UK maritime freight capacity during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

First, may I put on record my thanks to all transport workers? They have done an incredible job throughout the pandemic. The UK maritime sector has worked tirelessly to keep freight moving and provide sufficient capacity throughout.

[Karl Turner [V]]

The loss of a critical element of UK freight capacity in P&O’s Hull to Zeebrugge route will not only be a devastating blow to jobs and trade in my constituency, but as it is one of the most direct routes between Pfizer’s Belgian factory and hard-hit areas in the north of England, that could have a severe impact on the rapid roll-out of the covid vaccine, which I am delighted to see has been approved for use this week. I wrote to the Secretary of State recently on this issue. What action are Ministers taking to ensure that P&O honours its commitments and that this vital route is maintained?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman is a powerful advocate for jobs and his local economy, and rightly so. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), the maritime Minister, has recently written to P&O on this matter, reminding it of its responsibilities, but decisions on the long-term viability of any route are a commercial decision. The vaccine strategy is led by the Department of Health and Social Care, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that alternative routes are available for the relatively limited volumes of traffic that will be required to bring in this much needed and life-saving vaccine.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

What assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on taxi and private hire vehicle drivers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to promote the use of hydrogen fuel in transport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan included ambitious new policies and investment in hydrogen, including in transport projects. This includes £20 million for freight trials to pioneer hydrogen and other zero-emission lorries, and £3 million for the groundbreaking and unique Tees Valley hydrogen transport hub.

[Sir Roger Gale [V]]

The nation’s bus fleet, coaches and double-decker buses are mostly operating on Euro 4 and Euro 5 standards before converting to Euro 6, but Euro 6 is still diesel. Will my hon. Friend look at ways, perhaps working with the Treasury, to achieve an economy of scale that allows us to cut out Euro 6 and move directly from diesel buses to hydrogen-powered buses?

[Rachel Maclean]

When we leave the transition period, EU vehicle emissions regulators will become part of our retained law in the UK and that does mean that only new vehicles meeting the latest standards can be placed on the market for cars, vans, buses and trucks. This is the Euro 6 standard, but I can reassure my right hon. Friend that this Government are committed to hydrogen production. The Prime Minister set out that we are going to be producing 5 gigawatts of low-carbon hydrogen by 2030, creating 8,000 jobs, and I very much hope some of them will be in Thanet.

Transport for London: Funding

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to respond to the debate. Before I get into the substance of the debate, I want to echo the tributes that have been paid to Transport for London workers who have kept services running throughout the pandemic. I travel on the tube regularly, so I have seen the great way in which they provide those services.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the debate and all Members who have contributed. We have heard contributions from the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). It sounds like a tube map, but everyone made excellent points, and it is a pleasure to respond to them all.

First, it must be recognised that free travel for under-18s is unique to London compared with the rest of England. This should not be a debate about the merits of free travel. The Government recognise the merits of free travel for the most disadvantaged under-18s, which is why it is enshrined in the Education Act 1996 and children will continue to receive it.

Today, we are talking about those benefits that are different in London, and are not available to people in the rest of the country, no matter how disadvantaged they may be. It is important to get that point on record at the outset. Taxpayers all over the rest of the country—in Birmingham, Manchester, my Redditch constituency and other places where the need is just as great—do not enjoy this special benefit. They will rightly ask, “Why does London receive this?”

[Andy Slaughter]

So much for levelling up.

It is dispiriting to hear a Government Minister, particularly when addressing a group of London MPs, once again using divide-and-rule tactics, trying to set other parts of the country against London. Will the Minister address the issues that have come up in this debate and Members’ serious concerns about our constituents?

[Rachel Maclean]

Of course I will address those concerns. I am about to do that, but I am highlighting the facts at the outset.

[Sarah Olney]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

With respect, I do not think I can give way. I want to address the substantive points, but I will be happy to talk to hon. Members on another occasion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington highlighted in his opening speech the shocking extent of the Mayor of London’s financial mismanagement of Transport for London. We all know that coronavirus has cost £1.6 billion in lost fare revenue, but Mayor Sadiq Khan’s mismanagement of Transport for London’s finances has cost £9.56 billion in the round, and we heard many examples from hon. Members during the debate.

We can all agree that the transport network is key in supporting a safe and sustainable recovery for London. That was why, on 31 October, the Government agreed a second extraordinary funding and financing package with TfL for up to £1.7 billion, on top of the £1.6 billion funding package agreed with TfL in May. That is proof of the Government’s commitment to supporting transport services in London while remaining fair to national taxpayers.

The May funding agreement with TfL contained a series of measures to manage demand and to facilitate safe travel, including a temporary suspension of free travel for under-18s. I stress that that was agreed by the Government, the Mayor of London and the deputy mayor for transport. However, the suspension was not operationalised at the time. No one doubts the importance of free travel. It was always the case that children eligible for free home-to-school travel would continue to receive it, with families on low incomes—those most disadvantaged children—continuing to receive that free travel. It is right to say that the rationale was demand management, as before the covid-19 crisis, around a third of journeys were made by young people travelling to school.

[Sarah Olney]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

Very briefly, because I have several points to make.

[Sarah Olney]

I pointed out in my speech that in normal, pre-pandemic times, TfL raised about 80% of its own revenue. It was not primarily subsidised by taxpayers, so it is not by and large taxpayers who pay for free travel for young Londoners—or, indeed, for elderly Londoners.

[Rachel Maclean]

I remind the hon. Lady that central Government have agreed billions of pounds of support for Transport for London.

The initial reason for bringing in the suspension, or discussing it, was because it was seen as necessary to ensure that capacity was available on buses for those who needed to use it, including some schoolchildren, given social distancing requirements. At this point, I would like to refer to the Government’s commitment to support cycling and walking, or active travel. People should walk and cycle wherever possible, and that is why the Government have made £2 billion available to support it. According to TfL’s own statistics, the average journey to school in London is less than 1 km, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that some of those journeys could be made by active travel.

As part of the latest £1.7 billion of extraordinary funding agreed by the Government and TfL on 31 October, national taxpayers will continue to fund free travel concessions to standard English levels, and free travel to school for children who qualify under legislation. If the Mayor wishes to maintain concessions for Londoners above the English level, he will raise the money to pay for that. That represents a fair position for the whole country and brings London in line with the rest of England.

In agreeing the recent extraordinary funding and financing package, the Mayor proposed that he could pay for those concessions by retaining the central London congestion charge at its current level and increasing the existing TfL element of the Greater London Authority’s council tax precept. He must make his final choice by January 2021. It is the Mayor who has decided what the increase to the congestion charge should be and what the coverage is.

Several hon. Members raised the question of Hammersmith bridge. They will know that my noble Friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton is working on that and leading a taskforce. TfL has been given £4 million and a further £2.3 million for immediate mitigation, and a lot of detailed work is ongoing to sort the problem out.

Turning to TfL’s financial situation, the Government did agree a second package that will provide financial support until March 2021. The Government will make up the fare revenue that TfL has lost due to covid-19. The deal runs until 31 March, and the Government will continue to monitor TfL’s financial health and work closely with it to ensure that it continues to operate essential services and supports our recovery from the pandemic.

I would also like to put on record the fact that the Government are not forcing the Mayor of London to raise council tax. If he does so, it will be his decision and his alone. The Department works closely with him and constructive discussions are ongoing. Of course, I remind the Opposition that the Mayor of London is a politician, but nevertheless there are constructive discussions going on, as we have seen from the deals that have been agreed, which benefit Londoners and the transport network on which they rely.

As hon. Members have pointed out, the financial package agreed itself recognises that the Mayor of London has not done enough to find savings. His financial management has not been good enough, and further efficiencies must be found. Opposition Members have highlighted the impact on young people, so I must be clear: it is for the Mayor of London to explain to those young people why he has made the choices that will have those devastating consequences that Members are setting out. The Government have stood behind Transport for London to the tune of £2.3 billion. I suggest it is now time for the Mayor of London to take responsibility and show genuine leadership, instead of seeking to lay all his problems at the door of central Government.

Hydrogen Transport

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) on securing this excellent Adjournment debate. I cannot believe it is the first debate we have had in the House of Commons solely on this topic, but I am sure it will not be the last.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I just make the point that there has clearly been a misunderstanding here. The hon. Lady thought she was going to make a speech. Everyone else thought she was intervening. I have allowed her to make a speech. Let me make it absolutely clear for the record that I am not setting a precedent. There has been a misunderstanding, so let us just smooth it over.

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance on the matter.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley very much indeed; he made an absolutely excellent speech highlighting his vast range of expertise on this important topic, which is based on his prior experience and on his role in the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen.

As is clear from the points raised not only by my hon. Friend but by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), this technology provides a vast and exciting opportunity for our nation. Our world-leading researchers, innovators, engineers and vehicle manufacturers are already putting the UK at the forefront of this new era in transport technology, but we want to keep aiming higher, pushing further and, in particular, harnessing the potential to build back better.

Last week, the Prime Minister set out the 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, which I am proud to say contained several key transport policies, including £20 million to support the development of cost-effective zero-emission HGVs in the UK; £20 million to help develop clean maritime technology as part of the clean maritime demonstration programme, which will take place at key sites, including Orkney and Teesside; further investment in research and development on the infrastructure upgrades required at UK airports to move to battery and hydrogen aircraft; and £3 million for the recently announced Tees Valley hydrogen transport hub, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley referred.

In the Department for Transport, we intend to build on those announcements through our forthcoming and ambitious transport decarbonisation plan, which will set out how we intend to reduce emissions and deliver transport’s contribution to net zero by 2050. There is little doubt that the compelling case for green hydrogen set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has been heard by the Prime Minister and the Department for Transport. It will play a key part in meeting that goal and in helping to decarbonise the wider economy. We are committed to exploring what that role might be.

We are already investing up to £121 million in hydrogen innovation, supporting a range of projects in heating, transport and the production of low carbon hydrogen, with carbon capture utilisation and storage, and electrolysis technologies. Furthermore, our £23 million hydrogen for transport programme is increasing the uptake of fuel-cell electric vehicles and growing the number of publicly accessible hydrogen refuelling stations.

We are already seeing the possibilities of hydrogen being demonstrated right now, often with the help of Government funding. In the maritime sector, for example, a range of exciting projects is taking place: a company in Lowestoft called Windcat Workboats is leading work to develop hydrogen-fuelled zero-emission vessels; and in the Orkney Islands, Government-supported trials are exploring the use of renewably sourced hydrogen to fuel ferries.

Birmingham’s first hydrogen train, the HydroFLEX, has been built by the University of Birmingham and rail company Porterbrook with the support of a £750,000 grant from the Government. In the skies, US start-up ZeroAvia is using a £2.7 million Government investment to develop a hydrogen-fuelled powertrain that is being demonstrated on a small aircraft.

Since 2015, we have also funded £7.4 million through the low emission bus and the ultra low emission bus schemes to provide 62 hydrogen buses and infrastructure. The Prime Minister confirmed our commitment to deliver 4,000 zero-emission buses in his 10-point plan, backed up with £120 million to kick off this programme in 2021. I note that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South has made a clear request for those buses to be in Scotland. No doubt that has been heard. In Northern Ireland, bus company Translink bought a fleet of double-deckers built by Wrightbus which are powered by hydrogen generated from local onshore wind energy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley rightly poses many challenges. Hydrogen provides us with enormous opportunities, but it also presents us with equally important questions: how do we manufacture it in a sustainable and cost-effective way? How do we enable hydrogen-powered transport technology to scale up and get cheaper? How can we make hydrogen a real and viable option for transport operators? To help answer those and other questions, we are developing a transport hydrogen hub in Tees Valley—the first of many perhaps, as my hon. Friend will be glad to hear. It will support and develop cross-modal applications of hydrogen in transport.

[Alexander Stafford]

Will one of those hubs be in Rother Valley?

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I was expecting that question. I have noted very carefully his desire for Rother Valley to be a hydrogen valley. I will consider his request carefully.

Across Government, we are looking to accelerate the use of hydrogen in transport and its development. We have commissioned a master plan—we are cracking on with this work—which will outline options for hydrogen supply and storage infrastructure and support innovation facilities ahead of going through business case and planning processes in 2021, with a view to tendering industry for the infrastructure build in 2022. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the case that he is making in more detail in future.

In closing, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley and for Ynys Môn very much for their continued interest in the role that hydrogen can play to support decarbonisation. I will of course consider carefully the policy asks laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley. We have committed to publishing a comprehensive UK hydrogen strategy in early 2021, which will bring together the UK hydrogen story, showcasing activity to date and setting out an action plan for decarbonisation and expansion in the 2020s. Let me assure everyone that hydrogen has a future in transport and in levelling up Rother Valley and the whole of the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the debate on road traffic on 23 November 2020.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady referenced the haulier handbook. This is one part of our plan to make sure that all this information is one place. The handbook will be translated into 18 languages and it will be ready very soon. It is already available on gov.uk, and we will also be making hard copies available in 43 information and advice sites, which are opening up and down the country.

[Official Report, 23 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 648.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean).

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).

The correct response should have been:

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady referenced the haulier handbook. This is one part of our plan to make sure that all this information is one place. The handbook will be translated into 14 languages and it will be ready very soon. It is already available on gov.uk, and we will also be making hard copies available in 43 information and advice sites, which are opening up and down the country.

Road Traffic

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this we shall take the following motion:

That the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020 No. 1155), dated 21 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.

[Rachel Maclean]

These amendment orders relate to the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019 and the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019. Although the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) (Amendment) Order 2020 is subject to the negative procedure, the House should be aware of it when considering the other two amending orders. Together they support the effective management of Operation Brock and strengthen the enforcement regime that underpins it.

Operation Brock is a co-ordinated, multi-agency response to cross-channel travel disruption. It replaces Operation Stack and has been specifically designed to keep the M20 motorway in Kent open in both directions, with access to junctions, even in periods of severe and protracted disruption. The Kent Resilience Forum is responsible for the Operation Brock plans. Any decisions relating to the activation and timing of the different phases of Operation Brock will be taken by Kent police silver command.

It is crucial that these instruments are brought into force in time for the end of the transition period, to ensure that the scheme operates as efficiently as possible to reduce the impact on businesses and local communities in Kent. I am grateful, therefore, that time has been found for this debate to take place quickly and also for the speed with which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has scrutinised the instruments.

Amendment order No. 1 extends to 31 October 2021 the sunset clause in the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019. To give a little history, the 2019 order gave new powers to traffic officers in Kent, enabling them to, first, require the production of documents to establish the vehicle’s destination and readiness to cross the border; secondly, direct drivers to proceed to a motorway, removing the vehicle from the local road network; and, thirdly, direct drivers not to proceed to the channel tunnel or port of Dover except via a specified road or route.

The amendment sets the amount of the financial penalty deposit, which will be issued and taken immediately at the roadside by the police or staff from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The amount of the deposit for breaching the traffic restrictions introduced by the other two instruments is set at £300.

Amendment order No. 2 extends to 31 October 2021 the sunset clause of the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019, which prohibits cross-channel heavy goods vehicles from using local roads in Kent other than those on the improved Operation Brock routes. The amendment goes further to define local Kent roads that will require a Kent access permit, which can be obtained from the “check an HGV is ready to cross the border” service.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

My constituency is, in many ways, the gateway to Kent from both London and Essex, via the Dartford crossing. Will she assure me that her Department will use its best endeavours to ensure that lorries do not use local, small roads either for travelling to a different location or for parking up overnight?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He and his constituents can be assured that the powers we are taking in this legislation require Kent lorries to stick to certain specified routes only if they are crossing the border. I hope that that provides him with some reassurance; I am more than happy to meet him to discuss this matter much further.

To complete the picture, the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No.3) (Amendment) Order 2020, which is subject to a negative procedure, will extend the sunset clause in the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) Order 2019 to 31 October 2021. The order also further defines the strategic roads that need a Kent access permit, as issued by the “check an HGV is ready to cross the border service”, and allows the fining of HCV drivers without a Kent access permit on those roads. It will also allow HCVs carrying only specific goods of fresh and live seafood for human consumption and day-old chicks to obtain a priority goods permit that allows them to bypass the Operation Brock queues. It also clarifies who local haulier permits may be issued to, in line with Kent County Council guidelines. These orders are vital to enable sensible traffic management in Kent. We must show the public and businesses that Operation Brock will be ready, fully operational and enforceable on day one, should it be needed to deal with impact of cross-channel disruption. I commend the orders to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank hon. Members for their consideration of this very important legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) speaks up for her port and the vital role that it plays in her town. Like her, I am absolutely sure that the work that we are doing today will open up more opportunities for her port and local community. I thank her and her colleagues in local government for engaging so closely with me, for putting on record their detailed concerns and for inviting me to the Whitfield roundabout to see for myself the problems that she identified in such detail today. I commit to working closely with her, her local government colleagues, her local district council and Kent County Council, and to listen closely to the concerns of the local community. We will absolutely look at air quality and sanitation, and we will look carefully at the results of the consultation. I look forward to more meetings with her, including those later this week to which she has made reference.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) very much for her consideration, for the detailed points that she has raised, and for her support for these important statutory instruments. The reason that we are taking this legislation through the House is so that we can put in place plans to manage any disruption that we have outlined in our reasonable worst-case scenario. I assure her that I engage regularly with the sector, including all the different trade bodies, along with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who I see in the Chamber; we work together on many of these issues with the sector, so are aware of and pay close attention to the concerns, some of which the shadow Minister has articulated today.



On the issue of driver welfare, including sanitation and toilets, it is not just toilets that are essential, but all the facilities that drivers would expect. I thank again all the drivers who work in the transport industry, because they do play a vital role, as we have seen in the pandemic with how they have kept supplies moving around the country. We expect that to continue, but it is very important that we do everything we can to support them in that. The Kent Resilience Forum is working through detailed plans on the sanitation, and I am very happy to share the detail of that with the hon. Member for Bristol East when it is available.

The hon. Lady referenced the haulier handbook. This is one part of our plan to make sure that all this information is one place. The handbook will be translated into 18 languages and it will be ready very soon. It is already available on gov.uk, and we will also be making hard copies available in 43 information and advice sites, which are opening up and down the country.[Official Report, 26 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 10MC.]

It is very important that we pass these measures into law this evening so that we can manage all the possible outcomes that we will see at the end of the transition period. I thank the House for its consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.

Resolved,

That the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020 No. 1155), dated 21 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.—(Rachel Maclean.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will now suspend for a few moments in order to have the Dispatch Boxes sanitised.

Cleveland Bridge: Weight Limit

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing the debate. I know that Cleveland bridge, that iconic grade II* listed structure, which she has described in great detail and very eloquently, built in 1826, is of great significance to her constituents, and indeed the nation. As she highlighted, it is a UNESCO world heritage status site.

I know that many of the hon. Lady’s constituents have contacted her about this important local issue, and she has been extremely assiduous in discussing their thoughts and concerns in more detail. I of course agree with her that the protection of Bath is of national importance, and that is why it is good to have this debate tonight.

I want to put on the record a note of thanks to the hon, Lady’s local colleagues in Bath. She references the work on the clean air zones and the strategy. My Department has very close working with Bath, and we very much appreciate and thank those people for their work taking forward that important policy.

As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, the Government are taking action to invest to improve England’s local highway infrastructure—the dense network of local roads of which Cleveland bridge is part. We know that, without that investment in local roads, delays and disruption occur for the travelling public and businesses. I am really glad that the hon. Lady referred to that. She noted and appreciated the funding that Bath and North East Somerset Council has received from the Department for repairs to that iconic great bridge. The Department’s grant for the project is £3.56 million of a total cost of £3.92 million, and the council is providing the remaining £360,000.

The highways maintenance challenge fund enables local highway authorities to undertake major maintenance projects that are otherwise difficult to fund from the regular highways maintenance block funding allocations. Improving and maintaining our local transport infrastructure is essential for economic growth and connectivity, and Cleveland bridge is certainly no exception. As part of our wider commitments to road maintenance, the Government are committed to improving local journeys and ensuring that our local road network is safe and reliable. We are therefore investing more than £7.1 billion in highways maintenance between 2015 and 2020-21 to help councils to keep roads and vital local infrastructure, such as bridges, in good condition.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the Minister for elaborating on the funds that are available. As I mentioned in my speech, the problem is that if the bridge continues to have heavy goods vehicles on it even after the repair, it will very quickly need repairs again. Is it not a false economy not to put a permanent weight restriction on the bridge?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Member for her questions. I assure her that I will address those points—I hope, to her satisfaction. I have a copy of her letter to the Department with me.

We know that road condition, particularly the quality of road surfaces, is a concern for all road users, so we are making more money available for major repairs and trials of new technology to help local authorities future-proof our roads.

The local enterprise partnership, the West of England Combined Authority, considers the repair of Cleveland bridge and Saint Philip’s causeway viaduct as priorities. It sees Cleveland bridge and St Philips causeway as key structures in its regional network. As the hon. Member rightly said, issues on both structures have resulted in weight and speed restrictions, which the authority considers incur significant associated economic cost. Its view is that further restrictions will have an impact on safety, the economy and air quality, with higher carbon emissions. That is why the authority is very supportive of investment prioritisation for both these schemes.

Cleveland bridge has had funds allocated to it for its repairs, but I understand that the work has not started yet. Officers at the council propose that the work should begin in May or June next year, subject to the backing of council members, some of whom share the hon. Member’s concerns about the impact of HGVs on routes through Bath if the 18-tonne weight restriction is removed when the bridge is repaired. It would be a matter for the council to decide how to go forward, but I am sure that it is listening to the debate with great interest. I encourage her to continue working closely with the council to ensure that these important works can be undertaken.

I turn to the road investment strategy, which the hon. Member also touched on in her remarks. Bath’s Cleveland bridge provides a link between the A46 and A36 roads, which approach either side of Bath. It therefore forms part of an important through route between the Dorset coast and the M4. The majority of the route is part of the strategic road network—that is, roads managed by Highways England that link our most important population centres and international gateways, such as ports and airports.

Through the setting of periodic road investment strategies, the Government set out their strategic vision for the network and specify what Highways England must deliver in terms of road enhancements and day-to-day performance. To inform the content of the strategies, the Department and Highways England develop a substantial evidence base about the network, its current performance and likely future pressures. This is a product of several years of research, analysis, public engagement and consultation. These issues are of central importance in and around the city of Bath, and any long-term solution for reducing the impact of traffic at the Cleveland bridge will need to acknowledge and respond to this sensitive and deeply valued setting in relation to the natural, built and historic environment.

The hon. Member mentioned the strategic study. In situations where there is a recognised substantial problem or gap in current transport infrastructure, the Department commissions such a study to examine the issues and consider options that could address them. The unsatisfactory nature of the A36/A46 route passing Bath has long been acknowledged. The present dualled A4/A46 trunk road, the Batheaston bypass, was opened in 1996, but proposals to link the A4 to the A36 at Bathampton were rejected following a public inquiry. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for providing a lot more detail on the history associated with that to the House.

Subsequent proposals to revisit the options at that location, promoted by the local authority in connection with proposals for an eastern park and ride site, have not resolved the issue. There is a general recognition of the substantial factors that constrain choices for making meaningful improvements. In that light, the second road investment strategy committed Highways England to carrying out such a strategic study that will review north-south connections between the M4 and the Dorset coast. That will include a review of the case for adopting the A350 corridor as the main strategic route for the area in place of the A36/A46 via Bath and will consider the case for the trunking or de-trunking of key routes. So I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady that both Highways England and officials in the Department will engage with the Western Gateway as well as with a range of local stakeholders as the study develops. I should add that decisions about how Bath is best linked to the major destinations are for the relevant local highway authority to make.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the Minister for the detailed description of what is taking place now, but, as I said in my remarks, this will take years, and in the meantime the people of Bath have an 18-tonne weight restriction on the bridge. Why can the Department not allow Bath and North East Somerset Council to retain that limit? It will be good for the bridge, the people of Bath and our national heritage.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and her persistence. I have no doubt that the relevant stakeholders, including the local highway authorities, will be listening with great interest when they come to make their deliberations on these really important issues for the people of Bath.

In closing, I have mentioned the engagement taking place, but if the hon. Lady wishes to continue more engagement here in this place and with my noble Friend Baroness Vere in the other place, who is responsible directly for this particular matter of policy, I am sure she will find a lot of reassurance that she can offer her constituents. I thank her once again for this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft New Heavy Duty Vehicles (Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft New Heavy Duty Vehicles (Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the draft Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[Rachel Maclean]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Rees.

The type-approval instrument will be made under powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 and is needed for the end of the transition period. Currently, vehicles can be registered in the UK only if they have a valid EU type approval. Existing EU exit legislation provides for a provisional type-approval scheme to maintain control of the registration of vehicles after the transition period. That must now be amended to implement our obligations with regard to Northern Ireland. These draft regulations will ensure that the Government give effect to their commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol. The protocol applies EU legislation on type approval to Northern Ireland. Therefore, these regulations disapply much of our existing EU exit statutory instrument, made in 2019, in Northern Ireland, essentially leaving the status quo in place there. The measure also ensures unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the Great Britain market.

This regulation will also remove a 4-metre height limit for vehicles that was introduced in the EU to protect older infrastructure, such as overhead tram wires. UK manufacturers have been able to produce tall vehicles, such as double decker buses, only in limited volumes. This instrument will permit the mass production in Great Britain of vehicles exceeding 4 metres in height in the future. These changes do not affect the environmental and safety standards to which vehicles will be approved.

The Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 govern the establishment and enforcement of carbon dioxide emission targets in relation to manufacturers of new cars and vans. These regulations are also covered by the Northern Ireland protocol and so create requirements in Great Britain only.

EU regulation establishes mandatory fleet average CO₂ emissions targets for all cars and vans registered in the EU each year. Based on these targets, manufacturers receive individual fleet targets based on a comparison between the average weight of their fleet and the average weight of all relevant vehicles registered in the EU. As only the manufacturer’s fleet average is regulated, it may sell any vehicle that it wishes, provided that the emissions of its fleet balance out to meet its target. Fines are levied for non-compliance.

The purpose of the cars and vans CO₂ instrument is to ensure that the Government are able to set and enforce emissions targets that are at least as ambitious as the current arrangements for vehicle emissions regulation, which the Government committed to in 2018. It also amends a prior EU exit SI, the Road Vehicle Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, to reflect subsequent changes at EU level.

I come now to the New Heavy Duty Vehicles (Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. EU regulation establishes performance targets for CO₂ emissions reductions from the new HDV fleets. Those targets are designed to encourage the uptake of zero-emission vehicles and promote efficiency improvements in new internal combustion engines. Fines apply for non-compliance. This measure will apply UK-wide, as it is not listed in the Northern Ireland protocol. This instrument has the same aim as the cars and vans regulation. It will ensure that the Government are able to effectively set and enforce emissions targets that are at least as ambitious as the current arrangements for vehicle emissions regulation. It also amends a prior EU exit SI, made in 2019, regarding the collection of data from such vehicles, to reflect amendments to the EU legislation since that SI was laid before the House.

In conclusion, these statutory instruments ensure that we can control vehicle registration, maintain the level of ambition around carbon dioxide emissions, minimise the cost to industry and implement the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I thank you, Ms Rees, and the Minister. Brexit and climate change are two serious issues that we must deal with properly. The statutory instruments cut across both issues and so require scrutiny, especially in the light of approaching deadlines, political pressure and the demands of dealing with the coronavirus pandemic. As the Government move to enshrine EU regulations in UK law, I take the opportunity to emphasise the need to maintain truly and equally ambitious CO₂ reduction targets and high vehicle safety standards.

The first instrument deals with vehicle standards. There is undoubtedly a need to introduce new regulations to allow vehicles and engines to be produced in Northern Ireland to be sold in Britain. None the less, I emphasise that it is important for the Government to remain vigilant about several related safety issues. For example, the Health and Safety Executive provides official advice to deal with the extra precautions needed when working at height on vehicles. As the instrument eliminates the 4-metre height limit on vehicles, I ask the Minister to commit to monitoring the situation and to take all the necessary steps to keep those who work with large vehicles safe at all times. Will she write to me about the steps that the Department may take?

[Rachel Maclean]

indicated assent.

[Matt Rodda]

I note that the Minister is nodding. I am grateful and I look forward to hearing from her.

I have more serious concerns about the second and third instruments that relate to important aspects of the Government’s environmental policy and, I believe, clearly show that Ministers are seeking to water down their commitment to tackling the climate emergency. The Department for Transport’s explanatory memorandums on the two instruments on carbon dioxide emission performance standards say that the Government aim to introduce standards to UK law that are

“at least as ambitious as under the current EU regime.”

Independent analysis by the Transport & Environment think-tank questions that claim, however, and points out that, although the headline aims are the same, flaws in the current proposals reduce their effectiveness. I will address two specific examples; I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for their somewhat technical nature.

First, the regulations use the average mass of cars in the EU to set targets for future UK carbon dioxide emissions, rather than the average mass of cars in the UK. That amounts to watering down the regulations and setting lower targets for the UK, because UK cars are on average heavier. Secondly, the regulations allow manufacturers to use an additional 3.5 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre of super-credits as an additional allowance for producing CO₂ for some battery and plug-in hybrid vehicles that, in many cases, also have internal combustion engines.

According to experts, replacing EU regulations with the current proposals will mean that a fifth fewer electric vehicles are sold in the UK. That could mean that, in 2030, only one third of cars sold are electric. The Committee will have noted the Government’s interest in enhancing the number of electric vehicles.

That is a significant change in policy that will hamper the UK’s ability to meet vital targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, the Government declared a climate emergency and promised to take climate change much more seriously. If the instruments are passed in this watered-down form, however, it will clearly signal that the Government’s actions do not match their words.

As a constructive Opposition, we call for the Government to withdraw the instruments and introduce secondary legislation that transposes current EU regulations into UK law instead. If the Government commit to that, we will do all we can to expedite that process and allow the necessary legislation to be passed before it is needed.

Reducing the carbon dioxide produced by road transport should be the central priority for any Government. We cannot reduce our efforts to tackle the climate emergency and we will therefore vote against these regulations.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I definitely commit to writing to him. I reiterate the Government’s position: we do intend to maintain standards that are at least as ambitious. He has indicated his willingness to vote against the Government; nevertheless, we are confident that the legislation will enable us to meet our legal greenhouse gas and net zero commitments and the emissions targets. I remind him of all the work that we are doing to introduce an end to the sale of diesel and petrol cars and vans. We are actively looking at that policy, as he knows.

Question put.