Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, all of us will welcome these new regulations, which my noble friend presents. We know already that there are two patterns; the first is that of those who have been prescribed amphetamine medically, whose level will almost certainly be under 200 micrograms per litre of blood tested; the second is that of those taking illicit drugs, normally in excess of 270 micrograms per litre of blood. Therefore, it makes sense, as my noble friend points out, and as the regulations stipulate, to have a limit of 250 micrograms per litre of blood—below the second measure and well above the first.

On saving lives and reducing road accidents caused by drugs, other recent interventions are also to be welcomed. These include the recent publicity campaign as well as new screening devices for drugs. However, there are still far too many road accidents. As we are aware, a high proportion is caused by drivers between 18 and 25 years of age. Will my noble friend say what action she and her colleagues might be prepared to take? One such, which has proved to work well in Australia as well as in a number of other states, is a restriction on carrying passengers applied to those in their early of years of driving.

Will the Minister also say what plans we have to help raise road standards, both here and internationally? In the World Health Organization, there is now a technical consultation committee on drugs and driving. Might its focus be widened to include drink as well as drugs; and apart from those substances, could international scrutiny be developed to compare notes on all pragmatic measures to help reduce accidents?

In Europe we have the DRUID project, to which my noble friend referred. What has this achieved lately? Which further steps, initiatives and co-ordination may be desirable to improve its results?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations, which specify amphetamine as a controlled drug for the purposes of drug-driving and sets a limit above which it will be an offence to drive. We support the regulation but I have one or two questions about the Explanatory Memorandum—which, before I go any further, I accept may reveal that I have not understood it.

Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“Fewer than 2,200 proceedings were brought in 2013 under the existing section 4 impairment offence, with the proportion of guilty findings from the proceedings at only around 54%. This is compared to the 44,700 proceedings for the section 5 drink driving offence and the 96% proportion of guilty findings”.

However, the Explanatory Memorandum for the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) (No 2) Order 2015, which deals with penalties and was debated on 24 February, contains other figures. I am not clear on this. Can the Minister indicate whether I am comparing apples with apples or apples with pears? Paragraph 7.1 of that Explanatory Memorandum says:

“Fewer than 1,200 proceedings were brought in 2013 under the existing section 4 RTA ‘impairment offence’”.

It goes on to refer to the proportion of guilty findings from the proceedings of being unfit through drugs as being only around 72%, whereas the Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations quotes a figure of 54%. Today’s regulations refer to a comparison of 44,700 proceedings for the Section 5 drink driving offence, whereas the February order said this is compared to the nearly 47,000 proceedings in relation to that RTA offence. I fully accept that I may not be comparing like with like, but I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the different figures and whether I am making a fair comparison—in which case I am asking why they are different—or whether the figures relate to different issues, in which case it would be helpful if the Minister could explain in what way they differ.

In her detailed and thorough explanation of the background to these regulations, the Minister made reference to the increase in the original intended limit of 50 micrograms per litre of blood to 250 micrograms, and gave the reasons for it. The reasons for it, basically, were to address the point of not discouraging the legitimate use of amphetamine for medical purposes. Bearing in mind the original limit of 50 micrograms, which I think the document says was favoured in a majority of responses, I am not clear about to what extent one would expect an individual’s driving to be further impaired if they were at the new proposed limit of 250 micrograms per litre of blood rather than 50 micrograms. I appreciate that the Minister sought to address this in her introduction, but I would like a bit more clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, thank you very much. I shall talk through the questions in reverse order, with the latest being freshest in my mind. I can say to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that the cost of these screening devices is around £16 or £17—obviously there is some variation in price. He will be glad to know that at this point 35 of the 43 forces have purchased mobile screening devices, with 5,000 purchased in total. He is right that it is more expensive than testing for drink-driving, which costs something around 17p or 18p per device. I think that the normal pattern will be to test for drink-driving but, in those cases where drink-driving is not established as the cause of concern, police forces may well choose—on many fewer occasions—to then do a roadside test for drug-driving, the penalties being identical. They can of course always require the individual to go to the police station for a blood test. Indeed, the blood test is always a necessary step when there is a prosecution. With that kind of gradation, police forces should find this to be an affordable strategy. In fact, the feedback that we have is that they are very pleased to have a tool to help them to deal with drug-driving, which is an issue of very significant concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised several issues. I think he has heard me speak many times on the issue of precision in forecasts. I do not think that there is any such thing as precision in forecasts, and I sometimes wonder why we do not generally round numbers up, although in this case we did not go to the right of the decimal point. However, a forecast enables people to get in the ballpark, to use an American term, of what we think that the impact will be. That is an important piece of information to include when we do an assessment.

The noble Lord asked why we have not had a third consultation. I am afraid that I cannot tell him the exact date we decided that it would be too frustrating to go ahead with the third consultation. There was a general awareness that, having asked people the same question twice, we were unlikely to get a different answer when we went back for a third time. Informal consultations had been happening on an ongoing basis, making it even more redundant. However, more to the point, as he will know, the offence came into force under Section 5A on 2 March, and going through a round of consultation and then creating a much greater gap before amphetamines came on to the list seemed the greater evil. A third consultation would essentially confirm the information that had already been extensively received. It strikes me that it was a rather logical decision of the kind that government sometimes does not make.

[Lord Rosser]

My point was that if the conclusion was reached in September 2014 or shortly afterwards that there was no need for a third formal consultation, why have we waited until now to have this order? The second consultation was apparently conducted between 17 December 2013 and 3 January 2014, in something like six weeks over the Christmas and New Year period, so a further consultation could presumably have been completed in something like a month if it was not being held over Christmas and New Year. That is the bit that I cannot quite follow. It seems to have taken a very long time to conclude that a third consultation was not necessary, yet presumably all the information was available.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber so the Committee will stand adjourned for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why we were not at 50 rather than 250 micrograms, what risk there is because we are going with the higher limit and how we got there. Having consulted on these issues twice, it became very evident that there were complex issues involved in setting a limit for amphetamine, more so than with other drugs that we have been working on. If people with ADHD drive unmedicated, and are not therefore trapped by any of these regulations, there is a very high risk that they drive unsafely. That is very much associated with that condition. However, research shows that if they are taking proper medication, they are as safe as the rest of the population. Therefore, it is very important that people with ADHD are entirely comfortable with the idea that they can take their medication and not be excluded from driving and that their doctors know that they can prescribe medication and that those individuals will not be precluded from driving. That was an added degree of complexity in setting these limits.

[Lord Rosser]

Is the argument that if one fixes the limit at 50 micrograms, one is liable to be in a situation where the driving of an individual who is sticking to that limit is likely to be more impaired, for the reasons the Minister just mentioned, than if the limit is fixed at 250 and they are driving with, say, 249?

[Baroness Kramer]

It is only part of the argument because that would be true for ADHD patients. We took the issues back to the expert panel, which clarified that the point at which driving risk becomes significant with amphetamine is 270 micrograms. We did not want to set a line at 270. We wanted to have a little bit of a margin. The medical community felt that doctors could safely prescribe within 250. With 270 defined by the expert panel as the level at which risk would significantly increase, the Government coalesced around the 250 number. Obviously many people looking at enforcement discourage the use of amphetamine at all, and that is one of the attractions of using the lower number. In the process of pursuing all this, we recognised that setting it at 50, which had been one of our early thoughts in this process, was too low. We were not gaining anything in terms of safety, other than the deterrent effect, and we were potentially encouraging wrong decisions by people who have ADHD and need to take medication. They might end up not taking it because of their concerns over the benchmark.

Going back to the expert panel that advised the Secretary of State took a significant amount of time. That is what brought us much closer to this deadline. With the law going into effect on 2 March, it is appropriate for us to come forward with the decision rather than go through a consultation that we have no reason to believe will yield any information that we have not already received in the course of the first two consultations and the informal work that has taken place.

I agree very much that that has been a complicated process. It is difficult to describe and sometimes frustrating to have to listen to, so I apologise for that.

I also have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that—as always—he has picked up on a genuine typo and error within one of the explanatory memoranda, although I am now uncertain which one it is. We can confirm it later. He was talking about the percentage of convictions. The figure 72% applies to 2013—it is a typo in whichever document that said it was 2012. The figure 54% applied to 2012, so it was a failure to change the date from one document to the other. If he would like, I am happy to ask officials to write to him just to provide some clarification. This has been a very good lesson in the need to double check numbers although I have to say that, given the complexity of this, officials have done some brilliant work.

I have covered the key questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I now come to those from my noble friend Lord Dundee who raised the question of how to improve road safety standards here and internationally, with drug-driving as an element of that. In the Deregulation Bill we removed some loopholes around drug-driving and drink-driving provisions that allowed people to disregard roadside screening and insist on a blood test, during which time their levels could have changed. Loopholes like that have been removed within by Deregulation Bill.

I have spoken in debates in the House about whether we should be taking further actions to limit the circumstances in which young or new drivers can drive. It has also been a difficult balancing act because access to training, education and jobs frequently requires young people to drive. Indeed, we also want them to participate in the workplace more generally. The direction that we have chosen to go in is that rather than restricting the passengers they can carry or various other kinds of restrictions, we are looking at trialling work going on now with the insurance companies looking at the use of telematics. I can send the noble Lord all the details. As I have described in the House, telematics is a gizmo which sits in the vehicle and communicates with the insurance company to give an ongoing, running assessment of the quality of driving. Is it speeding, is it rough, is it erratic? All those kinds of behaviour can be fed back into the car itself. Anyone looking to purchase insurance and going on to the various insurance websites will find that if they permit telematics to be installed in their car they will in fact nearly always get a much cheaper insurance package. That looks to be the direction. We are trying to verify that there is a genuine relationship between the feedback from the telematics and safer driving. As we get the answers to that, that may well provide us with the direction to go so that we let young people have their freedom but yet have ways of ensuring that driving standards improve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

I think we have exhausted my capacity for guidance. However, these are important issues. My noble friend is right, the international exchange of information is always significant: we learn from others and share what we learn with others. There is satisfaction in being praised by the WHO for the direction that we have taken. I am sure that others will watch this process as closely as we watch their processes. If my noble friend will indulge me, I will follow up with a letter. That will be more appropriate and will ensure that I am not misleading him or leaving out important information.

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I may establish whether I have understood the point correctly. We support the order and are not opposing it. We have discussed the issue of amphetamine being taken for medical reasons, but do I take it that the Government’s position in relation to people who are not taking it for medical reasons but are taking it illegally is that increasing the limit from 50 to 250 micrograms does not represent a significant worsening of the impairment in the driving of the individual?

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has accurately reflected the circumstances. The advice that we received ultimately from the expert panel after sifting through all the evidence it received is that 270 micrograms per litre of blood moves an individual into the serious risk environment. Therefore, setting the limit at 250 met the test of falling below that level but still allowed doctors to prescribe appropriately to patients with ADHD. We were looking at 50 micrograms but got it wrong. That is why one goes through consultations, to learn and understand. The noble Lord will know that the enforcement community is attracted by 50 micrograms because of its deterrent effect. However, after putting all the pieces together, there is no additional significant risk associated with going from 50 to 250, as we understand it from the expert witnesses.

Cyclists: Safety

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, enforceability is always absolutely crucial. I hesitate to tell cyclists exactly what they should do when there is so much scope for us to make improvements in other areas, and I suggest that we pursue those. Obviously, cycle training matters and addresses many of those issues, and we have invested a great deal in Bikeability.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, asked a question about headphones. I do not think that he got an answer to it and no doubt the noble Baroness the Minister will wish to respond. However, the Government’s Cycling Delivery Plan, published more than a year late, contains no specific targets on increasing the percentage of journeys undertaken by bike from the current level of 2% and no specific long-term funding targets for cycling. Bearing in mind that, following pressure from Labour and cycling organisations, among others, the Infrastructure Act included a requirement to produce a cycling and walking investment strategy, do the Government intend to update the Cycling Delivery Plan by including the specific targets that are currently lacking and to which I have just referred?

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the Government have committed over £588 million to cycling—more than double the previous Government—and that has been absolutely crucial. The cycling and walking investment strategy will require a major piece of work, including a great deal of consultation, to design investment for the future, but our goal is to get to the £10 per head benchmark, which I think is widely accepted as the right number.

Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Grand Committee

It would be good if at some stage in future these other bikes could be included. Why did I do a bit of research on them? I wanted one myself. It was interesting to go around different companies to look at what products were available. I went to one depot that had a show room full of these bikes that exceeded the 40 kilogram limit, but they were the type that lacked pedals. They are out there for sale, though I presume that they have not been sold because they fall outside the regulations. I also presume that they are to be re-exported, because they cannot be sold in the United Kingdom. At some point in the future maybe Ministers might be more sympathetic. If we are governed here by European regulations and cannot exceed them I have no case, but I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Before I start, I shall say that have a number of questions. They relate to the impact assessment and I suppose that being confronted by a 21-page impact assessment full of statements and figures constitutes a challenge. I am not expecting answers today to the questions, some of which are highly detailed, so there is no need for any frantic activity behind the Minister. I am more than willing to have a response subsequent to this meeting, if she would like to do it that way.

I also note with interest in the impact assessment the statement of fact that this measure seeks to increase the EAPC sales,

“by harmonising GB legal standards for EAPCs with European standards”.

In some parts of the House that kind of statement would be dynamite to those with a certain lack of enthusiasm for the EU. Perhaps that is why this item is being discussed at 10 minutes to six in the Moses Room, when attendance might be fairly limited, rather than in another environment that might have provoked a few more people to turn up. I make that comment somewhat facetiously, bearing in mind the commitment to harmonising with EU standards.

The Minister has set out that to be currently classified as an EAPC—an electrically assisted pedal cycle—in this country the vehicle has to comply with a number of requirements and has set out the changes. As she said, those requirements are that: the continuous rated power of the motor must not exceed 200 watts for standard bicycles and 250 watts for tandems and tricycles; the electrical assistance must cut off when the vehicle reaches 15 mph; and the unladen weight must not exceed 40 kilograms for standard bicycles and 60 kilograms for tandems and tricycles. The changes which this order makes to bring us into line with European standards are that: the maximum motor power for standard bikes is increased to 250 watts; the electronically assisted cut-off speed is amended to 15.5 mph; all the weight limits are removed; and vehicles with more than three wheels are permitted.

Although the impact assessment tells us that there will be an anticipated increase in bike sales by 7,850 units to 20,400 by 2024, it does not really explain which of the changes that will be made by this order will be driving this increase. Is it the increase from 15 to 15.5 mph, which does not appear significant? Is it the increase in the maximum motor power for standard bicycles from 200 to 250 watts? Is it—as I think my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours suggested—the removal of the weight limits? Or is it the change permitting vehicles with more than three wheels?

How many vehicles with more than three wheels do the Government anticipate will appear on our roads as a result of this order? If the weight limits are to be removed, could the Minister confirm that these are unladen weights, which is what I understand to be the position? I know the Minister addressed this point in her opening comments about not expecting anybody to go stupid over the weight limits because of the fact that the bike would not be able to move if it got above a certain weight, but is there any weight beyond which an EAPC—bicycle, tandem, tricycle or vehicle with more than three wheels—becomes potentially unsafe for the driver or for other road users? Or is the Government’s view that that level would be reached only in a situation where you could not actually pedal the bicycle, tandem or tricycle in any case and therefore it is an irrelevant consideration?

On safety, page 1 of the impact assessment states that the objective is “to simplify and reduce” legislation,

“whilst maintaining or improving safety standards”.

Can the Minister say a little more about how the order will actually improve safety standards?

The impact assessment also states on page 1 that,

“the most commonly produced EU bicycles cannot be used in the UK without road tax and a driving licence”.

Since the order will change that situation, could the Minister say what the impact of the order will be on the UK bicycle manufacturing industry, as opposed to the retail sector, when the most commonly used EU bicycles can be used in the UK without having to pay road tax or have a driving licence? My understanding is that the UK bicycle manufacturing sector is stated in the impact assessment to be valued at, I think, just over £50 million. It is very small in that sense. Is it not possible that this order and the changes it incorporates will be something of a blow to what is left of the UK bicycle manufacturing sector? Is that why the impact assessment does not address that issue, saying in paragraph 5.8 that it,

“concentrates solely on the benefits to the retail sector from increased sales of EAPCs”?

The impact assessment tells us on page 3, although the Explanatory Memorandum does not, that:

“The current GB Regulations define an EAPC”,

as including a requirement—which I think comes on to a point that my noble friend has been making—that:

“It must be fitted with pedals by means of which it is capable of being propelled”.

Could the Minister confirm that that requirement is not being deleted by the order we are discussing at the moment?

Page 5 of the impact assessment states, at paragraph 5.1, that as,

“no evidence has been provided or otherwise identified that suggests any significant quantifiable additional safety (accident/casualty) or other costs, the impact assessment assumes negligible costs”.

However, since the impact assessment holds out the prospect of a significant increase in EAPC sales, is it the contention that users of EAPCs are less likely—or no more likely—to suffer fatalities, or serious or slight injuries, than users of cars or trucks engaged in similar trips?

Paragraph 5.22 states:

“The accident benefits from reduced car use are ignored as any potential costs from increased accidents are not included in the earlier section for bikes”.

What is the evidence that these two figures would cancel each other out, as this would appear to be the justification for making that statement?

The order aligns the UK with the EU 250 watt maximum motor power limit. Does it also mean that in future in the UK, drivers of EAPC vehicles with engines of between 201 and 250 watts will no longer have to undertake compulsory basic training or wear helmets? If that is the case—I may well be wrong—will the Minister point out where in the documentation it says that, and what the impact would be on safety? Could she also say whether any people in this country currently drive EAPC vehicles of between 201 watts and 250 watts with the current regulations in force? What she has been saying is that the current regulations on the tax and driving licence act as a deterrent to anyone driving vehicles of between 201 watts and 250 watts.

In paragraph 5.2, the impact assessment refers to higher sales of EAPC bicycles having the potential to displace journeys by bus. I do not want to exaggerate this because I appreciate that we are talking about relatively small numbers, but is there any significant estimated impact of this on bus revenue, or is it deemed to be so negligible as to be—I say this in the best spirit—not worth bothering about? If there is going to be this transfer from bus travel to bike travel, how will that contribute to the declared objective set out in the impact assessment, to which I have already referred, of,

“maintaining or improving safety standards”?

I will not raise the next issue regarding a gap in the wording of the impact assessment. I will forget that for the moment.

Paragraph 5.7 of the impact assessment states that the direct benefits to business are assumed to be,

“increased profits from increased bike sales”.

Is that a net figure that also reflects any adverse impact on car or van sales, since the documentation clearly envisages a transfer of journeys from car, van and, indeed, bus as a result of this order?

If I read it correctly, the impact assessment claims benefits from the order of between £97 million and £290 million over a 10-year period to 2024. Having a gap of nearly £200 million from benefits that, at a maximum, are less than £300 million does not, frankly, inspire confidence in the likely impact of this order.

The impact assessment on page 2 states that benefits to the cycling industry from increased bike sales are,

“likely to be displaced by reduced expenditure in other retail sectors”.

Is it the Government’s view that one will cancel out the other—and, if so, what is the evidence for that?

Paragraph 5.16 on page 9 of the impact assessment states, in respect of EAPCs:

“Evidence from online appraisal of lifecycle benefits typically provide estimates of life expectancy of 15,000 miles, equivalent to just over 6 years’ use”.

That works out at some 2,500 miles per year. Paragraph 5.19 on page 10 of the impact assessment states that,

“this impact assessment assumes EAPC users cycle 2,392 kms per year”.

That is considerably less than the 2,500 miles per year figure quoted in paragraph 5.16 of the impact assessment. Why are the figures so different—unless they are not comparable, which may well be the case? But if they are not comparable—if I am not comparing like with like—perhaps I may have a response, albeit at some later stage, on what different considerations they are reflecting.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I have been listening very carefully to my noble friend’s comments. There is a danger that the targets will not be met, although if electrically powered bicycles without pedals which fit the same criteria about kilogram limits and miles per hour are included, they will be far exceeded. We are missing an opportunity, if I have understood it correctly. If it is simply bicycles with pedals, that is going to limit the market very much. I suspect that those who have been responding to the impact assessment may well have had in mind the kind of electrically assisted vehicles to which I am referring.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention. One of the questions I raised earlier was whether there is still a requirement for pedals or whether it has been removed, which is part of the point that my noble friend has made. I think that is probably the situation, but I am asking for confirmation that it is still there.

My final point—I am sure to everybody’s great relief—is that the net present value of business benefits reflected here, which I assume means increased bike sales, is quoted in paragraph 5.14 of the impact assessment as being £2.7 million to £10.3 million over the period 2015-24, but in paragraph 5.26 of the same document as being £2.6 million to £10 million. Is that simply a case of slightly different figures being quoted or am I not comparing like with like? If I am not comparing like with like, what are the different factors taken into account in the two sets of figures? Can the Minister say whether the net present value of business benefits are in addition to or included in the overall widely different benefit figures of £97 million and £290 million? I assume that they are in addition to them, but I would be grateful for confirmation.

I have raised a number of questions which arise from, frankly, basically one read of the impact assessment. I am afraid I could not face going through it again, and if I had gone through it again I might well have found the answers to some of the questions that I have raised. I do not want anybody to take that as a derogatory comment about the impact assessment. It contains some very interesting statistics and information, and I appreciate having received it. I would not wish my comments to be taken as a hostile reaction to it.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, did not read the impact assessment another two or three times because I suspect he would have come forward with other questions and queries. I will make sure that those who prepared the impact assessment are told of his compliments, if I may take them that way, on the detail that has been provided.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and partly to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I think the vehicle the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, described is classified as a low-powered moped and that it would be sensible to have a conversation after this Committee to understand exactly what kind of non-pedal bike he is talking about.

[Baroness Kramer]

I think we will have to investigate that because the noble Lord deserves a more detailed response. These regulations apply to vehicles which must have a pedalling capacity, so that continues in place. Only those kinds of vehicles are covered by these regulations. I will look at the regimes for the other vehicles the noble Lord has described.

I will just try to address some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, although he has kindly said that we could respond in writing. Particularly when comparative numbers are involved, that will be a wise approach, but I shall make some more general comments around the questions he raised. For example, he asked where the benefits for this would come from and whether it was because of a particular aspect of the change in regulation. The argument as I understand it—it makes sense to me—is that it is the harmonisation which creates the change because it means that suddenly people in the UK are able to access the much wider range of models available in continental Europe but which have not been available here because, under the British classification, they would have required registration, taxation, insurance, licensing and so on. A much greater range of models will suddenly become available.

He asked whether that could have an impact on UK bicycle manufacturers. I would argue that for them one of the most hampering experiences has been the need to produce one bike for the British market and another model to compete effectively in the European market. With harmonisation, they can now look at a model that reaches the entire population of the EU, which should change the dynamic significantly. Having a single market, as it were, for electrically assisted pedal cycles creates an opportunity for UK manufacturers to focus not just on the domestic market alone but on a far broader market. That is potentially a very significant opportunity for them.

[Lord Rosser]

I appreciate that one can look at the issue as the Minister has done, but the other obvious point is that we can now have bicycles in this country that we could not have before, and they are being manufactured big time within Europe and presumably not being manufactured on any great scale by the bicycle manufacturing industry in this country. Therefore, we are likely to be dominated by bicycles manufactured in Europe. But I appreciate that one can look at it the other way, as the Minister is doing, and say that it is an opportunity for the bicycle manufacturing industry in this country to start to manufacture these bicycles and sell them. She said that the great majority of those who responded welcomed the change. Was there any response from the UK bicycle manufacturing industry and was it quite happy with what is happening?

[Baroness Kramer]

I would be glad to see whether there is anything that we can share that comes from those manufacturers. I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord an answer at this moment in time. I am sure that he would not want to see a protectionist approach to an industry. Typically, the UK has thrived from a much more open trading environment rather than a protectionist environment, and I see no reason why that should not be true in this industry as well as any other.

The noble Lord asked about four-wheeled vehicles, which now come within scope provided that they meet all the other criteria. Royal Mail in the past, as well as others, have seen this as a potential mechanism for last-mile delivery, rather than sending around white van man on all occasions. So there is potential in this area that so far we have been unable to test because these vehicles have not been available to people. It is an area that we will be watching with great interest.

The noble Lord asked about safety. Perhaps I can at the same time address the weight issues. The noble Lord said that the fact that the power of the engine is limited constrains the weight of the vehicle—but with a weight constraint there is a constant intention to try to lightweight the vehicles to get them under the barrier. Removing the weight restriction gives an ability to consider a sturdier construction and a more appropriate one for those vehicles that carry goods, albeit in relatively small amounts—otherwise one would never be able to move them. We see removing the weight restriction as a safety measure, because in effect it prevents the gaming of that particular standard, which we do not think has anything much to add.

Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I have come very recently to this debate, but I was interested to come along and listen to it. I am interested in two areas, which are probably old territory—I hope that the Minister will forgive me. This is an important bit of legislation; drug-driving is equally as dangerous and as much of a hazard to fellow citizens as drink-driving. However, I am still unclear how the enforcement of this testing is to be done in a practical way. We always think of drug-driving as being about illegal drugs, but presumably some legal highs or even medicinal pharmaceuticals, particularly tranquilisers, can be equally dangerous. Is that covered in this legislation? I would be interested to hear and understand that context.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and content of this order. As she said, and as the Explanatory Memorandum sets out, the order amends the 1988 Act in consequence of the introduction to the Act, through the Crime and Courts Act 2013, of new drug-related road traffic offences, which make it a criminal offence to drive, attempt to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle with a concentration of a specified controlled drug above a laid-down limit. The amendments in the order extend the penalties connected with drink and drugs, including failure to provide a specimen, to the new drug-related road traffic offences and provide for the endorsement of an offender’s counterpart and driving record in relation to the new offences. As the Minister said, the new offence comes into force shortly—at the beginning of next week—in England and Wales. Regulations determined by Parliament last October, I think, specified the controlled drugs and their limits.

I appreciate that the key debate on this issue has already taken place and the decisions have been made, but can the Minister give an up-to-date indication of the number of proceedings per year expected to be brought under the new offence of driving having taken a relevant controlled drug above the specified limit and whether the ability to test for and prove that drugs above the specified limit have been taken is sufficiently robust to expect a proportion of guilty findings similar to that applicable to drink-driving proceedings, namely 96%? Perhaps she could also say something about whether the necessary equipment to undertake these tests on those who it is felt may have been driving with a concentration of a specified controlled drug above a specified limit is now available, so that we are ready to go as far the bringing into force of these new offences is concerned. What is the cost of that equipment? How many police forces already have it? Who has to pay for it? Does it have to be used back at the police station or do we have equipment that can be used at the road side? It would be helpful if the Minister was able to comment on those points.

As I understand the penalties and levels, a zero-tolerance approach is being adopted towards anyone who is found to have a concentration of a specified controlled drug unless they are able to show that it resulted from having taken a drug for medical reasons.

The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“No formal consultation for these amendments has been undertaken as these are consequential amendments upon the creation of new drug driving offences”.

Has consultation taken place previously on what the penalties should be and whether they should be on a par with, lower than or higher than those related to drink-driving, or has it just been assumed that they should be on a similar level? Was a view taken on whether driving having taken drugs is likely to have a lesser or greater impact on driving ability than having consumed alcohol? One assumes, in the light of the comment in the Explanatory Memorandum that the penalties are on a par with those for similar driving offences connected with drink and drugs, that the impact is deemed to be the same. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that point because, if the impact is deemed likely to be greater, one would have thought that that would have been reflected in the penalty; if it was deemed likely to be lower, likewise it might have been thought that that would have been reflected in the penalty the other way.

Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 12 that a supplier has been selected to evaluate the effect of the new drug-driving offences. Could the Minister say who that supplier is?

[Baroness Kramer]

I thank noble Lords. I should make it clear to my noble friend Lord Teverson that there is an existing Section 4 offence that is used to deal with driving under the influence of drugs not specified for the purpose of the new offence. That remains in place. The existing drug-impaired driving offence remains, and therefore all drug-impaired drivers can be prosecuted, whatever and how many drugs they have taken. I give him that assurance. There is a process to add drugs to the list of specified drugs. I will write to my noble friend with the details of how drugs can be added in that process. There is both the broad brush and the ability to add new drugs to the list. For a new drug to be covered by the new offence, the following are necessary: the drug has to be recognised and classified by the Home Office under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; a consultation would then need to follow on whether to add it to those specified under the offence of drug-driving and at what level to set the specified limit; and regulations would need to be approved under the affirmative procedure. So there is a procedure in place to add to the list.

I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will correct me if I have misunderstood this, but one of his questions was essentially about whether or not there should be a difference between the sentencing for impairment caused by alcohol and that for impairment caused through drug use. The rationale to me is that identifying the specified drug is step one, and then defining the level above which having that drug in one’s system is the standard of impairment for the offence is step two. That, essentially, is the way in which this legislation works. In other words, first, the drug is identified—I have read out the process that is gone through to get a drug on the list, which obviously involves consultation—and, secondly, the limit above which that drug in the system would be considered an offence is determined. The noble Lord will understand that that is, in many ways, the same as the approach used with alcohol. It is illegal to drive with above a certain limit of alcohol in the system.

The noble Lord also asked about testing equipment. We understand that 12 forces at present have station-based screening devices. Manufacturers are talking widely to various forces, who are obviously considering whether to purchase devices to enhance their capacity to enforce. Mobile screeners are also available. The new mobile screener tests only for cannabis and cocaine, but those are two of the most prevalent types of drugs detected among drug drivers. Again, police forces manage their budgets and so they must decide how to use their budget to acquire equipment for enforcement.

[Lord Rosser]

I am sure the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong but 12 forces have station-based equipment and the new offence comes in at the beginning of next week. Does that mean that there is a significant number of forces that cannot enforce this offence because they do not have the equipment?

[Baroness Kramer]

At this point in time, 12 forces have station-based screening devices. We are encouraging forces to talk with manufacturers about the kind of products available. I am sure the noble Lord would not want the introduction of the offence to be delayed until all forces had decided on the kind of equipment they wished to purchase for enforcement.

[Lord Rosser]

I hope the noble Baroness will not take this as an attempt at withering criticism but police forces have known for some time that this new offence was likely to come into force. If I understand correctly, it does not look as though many of them have been taking active steps to make sure they have got the equipment to be able to enforce. Is it a question of cost? Does this equipment cost a large sum of money?

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Grand Committee

[Viscount Simon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness the Minister described this very well. It makes perfect sense. It will help maintain the health and safety of very young children. I have only two questions but I do not know whether she will know the answers. How has the new type of child crash-test dummies been changed? How has the new side-impact test been changed again?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Perhaps I may raise just one or two points on these regulations. In particular I refer to the impact assessment. Impact assessments quite often contain little gems that are not actually set out in the Explanatory Memorandum. This impact assessment sets out the policy objectives and states that:

“The policy objective is to reduce the number and seriousness of injuries to child vehicle occupants whilst keeping any additional burden to industry or vehicle users to a proportionate level”.

It goes on to talk about UN-ECE Regulation 129, to which the Minister has referred, as intending to provide additional safety benefits over and above the existing standards. As I understand it, this regulation, which has been accepted by the EU, is not compulsory. However, I note that when the impact assessment goes on to look at the policy options, it sets out the first one as “do nothing”, which is fairly obvious, while the second option would allow the use of regulation 129 covering standard child restraints in vehicles as well as the existing regulation 44 standard. It states that this is the favoured policy option, and that indeed is what the Minister has said.

The assessment then goes on to set out that a third option to require all new child seats sold from the date of implementation to be of regulation 129 standard was dismissed, which is fairly strong language, on the basis that this would go beyond the requirements of the EU directive and would be considered to be gold-plating and not be deliverable. Am I to understand that implementing a directive in a gold-plated way means that you implement it in such a way so as to reduce the number of child fatalities, as well as the number of serious and slight injuries, on the basis, as we are told, that the new restraint under regulation 129 is safer?

Further on in the impact assessment, on page 5, two policy options are set out, excluding the do-nothing one. The second one, which I think is the one that has been dismissed—I should like to know by whom—states:

“Require all new child seats sold from date of implementation (early 2015) to be of Regulation 129 standard”.

It continues:

“This would ensure that all new units sold would be of a higher safety standard, and also ensure that these safer child restraints permeate the market quicker than would be the case under option 1”.

That is the option that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, has said is favoured and is indeed provided for in these regulations. Can the noble Baroness confirm that, given the reference to the fact that this would constitute gold-plating, the definition of “gold-plating” would ensure safer child restraints being required and that they would also,

“permeate the market quicker than would be the case under option 1”?

It would be an interesting example of what gold-plating means. Perhaps a rather happier wording could have been used in the impact assessment instead of this enthusiasm for dismissing something as gold-plating. It might have been a bit more open to have said, “Yes, we have made a decision not to go for the safest option, the one that would reduce the number of fatalities, serious and slight injuries. We have decided to go for the option that does not make it compulsory but which we recognise might not achieve the same reduction in fatalities and injuries to young children”. As that is my understanding, I think it would have been better if it had been put in that way rather than this enthusiasm for using the word “gold-plating”.

I also notice that the option which was looked at was the one that would:

“Require all new child seats sold from the date of implementation (early 2015) to be of Regulation 129 standard”.

If I have understood this impact assessment correctly, it estimates that, without it being a requirement, the take-up of the enhanced car seats will still be between 70% and 100% by 2020, with what is described as a “best uptake of 85%”. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is the case. If it is expected that there will nevertheless still be a high uptake of child restraints that conform to the higher standard set by UN-ECE Regulation 129 over a period of five years, why was it not considered that the second option—a requirement that all new child seats sold from the date of implementation are to be of regulation 129 standard—should be brought into force in two, three, four or five years’ time? At least we would then have had a guarantee that it was going to come in.

I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but, as I understand it, under these regulations there is no date when it will actually become the required standard. If we are expecting such a high uptake of the new, higher-standard child restraint by 2020, what is the objection to saying to what would appear to be the relatively low percentage that would not conform to the higher standard that, by that time, you will have to conform to the higher standard? I do not understand why that has not been incorporated into the regulations. I can appreciate why the regulations do not require everyone to conform from early 2015 but, bearing in mind the high uptake that is expected, I do not understand why there is nothing in the order to say that from a certain date—two, three, four, five years’ ahead—it will become the required standard.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, perhaps I may respond first to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. Currently, there is not a side impact test; that now comes in with the new regulations. The dummies will be designed so that they demonstrate the damage that comes with a side impact test. If there is further information on the dummies that I have not mentioned, I will gladly write to him and let him know.

On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, essentially about why the new seat is not mandatory or why we do not have a date for its becoming mandatory, it is possible that the documentation has not been clear. Part of the new standard does not fit in to the car by use of a seat-belt. It requires an Isofix point to be built in, which is deemed to be a safer way for a seat to be anchored. That standard became mandatory for new cars from 2012. It would have been seen in many new cars built from around 2006 and even in some from before then, but obviously many cars that parents own date from an earlier period and therefore do not have an Isofix anchor embedded in them. If we were to make this mandatory today, we would effectively be requiring parents to go out and purchase a new car when they simply want to purchase a car seat. That really is an unacceptable burden.

There will be demand from parents who have older cars or cars which do not have the Isofix fitting to purchase a seat for their child. We are satisfied that the current standard is very safe. That does not mean that we do not want to pursue opportunities to increase the measure of safety. I described earlier the side-impact benefit and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, followed up on it. We recognise that existing car seats provide a great deal of safety for children, so we do not feel that it is necessary to tell parents that they have to buy a new car in order to buy a seat that meets the new standard.

We accept that over time, as they replace their cars and their car seats, parents will follow the new standards, but this means that there is a period of time when we need to have both standards operating in parallel. To put in a date would in fact be artificial. It is sensible to do all we can to encourage the take-up of the new car seats in vehicles which can take the fitting. It will be a matter of parent choice, but the majority of parents want the car seat that provides their child with the greatest protection. It is also true to say that as the volume of sales of the new car seats goes up—they are currently more expensive than the current car seats—the price will inevitably come down as economies of scale kick in.

I think that we will see a very good take-up of these new car seats, but to make it mandatory would place a burden on some families for whom the purchase of a new car would be exceedingly difficult. What we do not want is for anybody to be tempted not to use a car seat because the only one that they can legally purchase cannot be fitted into the car they already have. I think that the noble Lord will recognise that. Over time, we can see what is happening with the turnover of cars; that is not something that is ideally predictable. It will be possible at some point to remove the earlier standard and simply go with the new standard because there will have been sufficient turnover in the car fleet. I hope, with that understanding that this is a sensible way that does not place an extraordinary burden on families—

[Lord Rosser]

Am I to take it that the cost of changing an existing car and thus enabling it to take the new fitting or arrangement is either prohibitive or just not technically feasible?

[Baroness Kramer]

I am not an expert in whether one can easily retrofit an Isofix fitting—it has a top tether anchorage point. According to the information I have just been given, it is not possible to retrofit into a car, so it is a case of buying a car in which this fitting is part of the original design of the car, because it is so fundamental.

[Lord Rosser]

That is less a comment about not wanting to gold-plate an EU directive than it is actually saying that in relation to existing cars it is not possible to do it anyway. The Minister has said that it is not a question of cost, but that you actually cannot do it.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, the order follows a good deal of consultation and makes some relatively small but important changes to the renewable transport fuel obligation scheme—the RTFO. The changes would improve consistency in the way the RTFO treats two different types of biodiesel, and would encourage investment in renewable gaseous fuels. The RTFO is a certificate trading scheme that places an obligation on suppliers of fossil fuels in the UK to ensure that certain amounts of sustainable biofuel are supplied. The obligation can be met by redeeming renewable transport fuel certificates known as RTFCs. Their value is determined by the market, and trading them provides a financial reward for those supplying renewable transport fuel.

The RTFO order was amended in 2011 to ensure that only biofuels meeting mandatory sustainability criteria were rewarded with RTFCs. The 2011 amendment also introduced new requirements on suppliers to report on the sustainability of the biofuel being supplied and for this to be assured through independent verification. In April last year we published our response to a call for evidence on additional support mechanisms for advanced and more sustainable fuels. At the same time, we concluded a post-implementation review of the RTFO scheme. The review considered the extent to which the RTFO had achieved its objectives to support the supply of sustainable biofuels in the UK. The review also noted the significant achievements made by the UK biofuel industry to date.

Since the RTFO was introduced in 2008, savings in greenhouse gas emissions, excluding impacts from indirect land use change, have increased from 46% to reach 69% in 2013-14. The most recent statistics also showed that 46% of biofuels supplied in the UK were made from a waste or residue such as used cooking oil, which does not compete for land with food crops. A further public consultation on the proposed changes to the RTFO order we are considering today ran in the summer of 2014.

This small group of amendments aims to build on the RTFO scheme’s success and deliver two important commitments. The amendments will, first, provide consistency in respect of how we treat renewable fuels under the RTFO by aligning the treatment of two particular types of biodiesel; and, secondly, encourage investment in the development of emerging renewable transport technologies such as sustainable renewable gaseous fuels, by adjusting the reward provided to reflect their higher energy content relative to liquid biofuels.

Hydotreated vegetable oil, or HVO, and fatty acid methyl ester, or FAME, are both renewable fuels that can be blended with diesel. The biological feedstocks used in the HVO process are similar to those used for FAME: for example, vegetable or plant oils and waste animal fats. In both the FAME and HVO processes, a secondary, non-biological feedstock is used and incorporated into the final fuel. For FAME, this is methanol derived from natural gas, while for HVO it is hydrogen produced from natural gas. However, although FAME is deemed to be 100% renewable in calculating the reward of RTFCs, HVO is currently not. The effect of the order would be to provide for HVO to be treated in the same way as FAME. This is in line with our emerging understanding of how HVO should be treated under the renewable energy directive and is consistent with the approach in other EU member states to these two types of biodiesel.

Our policy aim for gaseous fuels is to level the playing field for renewable gaseous and liquid fuels. Doing so provides a clear signal that the UK Government will provide a positive investment climate for those looking to supply renewable gaseous fuels in the HGV and other sectors. Renewable gaseous fuels are currently rewarded at one RTFC per kilogram of fuel supplied, and liquid renewable fuels at one RTFC per litre. However, the energy contained in a kilogram of gaseous fuel is generally higher than the energy found in a litre of liquid fuel. The draft order would provide that 1.9 RTFCs per kilogram would be rewarded for biomethane and 1.75 RTFCs per kilogram for both biopropane and biobutane. As is the case now, double the amount of RTFCs would be awarded where the fuel is produced from wastes or residues.

I am aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reasonably advised the House that the order may imperfectly deliver the policy, due to uncertainties highlighted by the department in our cost-benefit analysis. I will address the concern that has been raised. The range of costs and benefits is essentially determined by which sort of biodiesel will be displaced by extra RTFCs going to renewable gaseous fuel. We are estimating discounted carbon-reduction benefits of £2.65 million, assuming a 50:50 spilt in the displacement of biodiesel from waste versus biodiesel from crop.

Waste-derived biodiesel is incentivised by being awarded twice the number of certificates per litre compared to crop-based biodiesel. As a consequence, it is a more cost-effective option in meeting the obligation. There would only be a carbon cost should a significant volume of waste-derived biodiesel be displaced—and then only if approaching 60% of the displacement was of waste-derived biodiesel.

As biodiesel from waste is the cheaper option to meet the obligation, and is in limited supply, we fully expect that biodiesel from crop would be displaced by increased rewards for renewable gaseous fuels. This means that the carbon savings for 2015 to 2020 are likely to be towards the higher end of those estimated in our cost-benefit analysis central scenario—nearer the £16 million benefit end of the scale. Further, I stress that we have limited options to decarbonise the heavy goods sector, and I believe that, in the long term, renewable gaseous fuels will be an important element in meeting our carbon-reduction targets.

The draft order will also introduce two measures to support effective administration. The first would update and streamline the powers of the RTFO administrator to require information. The second measure would put it beyond doubt that the administrator can apply mathematical rounding as part of calculating the number of RTFCs it issues.

Biofuels have proved a complex and controversial topic over the years. However, we know that vehicles are going to continue to require liquid and gaseous fuels for decades to come. We therefore need to develop technologies and capacity to produce low-carbon fuels in the UK, to reduce emissions from road transport and to encourage sustainable growth and jobs.

The proposed changes in the draft order are supported by stakeholders and make a number of worthwhile improvements in that direction. I know that the industry and investors would like to see greater certainty on the pathway to meeting the 2020 transport renewable energy target. The Committee will be pleased to hear that, in anticipation of measures to address indirect land use change—ILUC—being agreed in Europe later this year, we have been working with a very broad group of interested parties through our Transport Energy Task Force on precisely how to improve the investment climate. The group will report to Ministers in the coming months. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The only issue that I wished to raise—and I am sure that the Minister will hardly be surprised—was the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the concerns it expressed. I had intended to mention them in order to give the Minister the opportunity to put the Government’s response on the record. She has, of course, already done that in her introductory comments.

In the light of the Minister’s speech, it rather begs the question why the three different scenarios of low, central and high were drawn up for the period 2015-20, given that, as I understand from her speech, she is almost dismissing at least one, if not two, of those scenarios as being based on unrealistic modelling assumptions. If she is so sure that the issue raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—that this is about not just a range of carbon savings but a range covering both carbon savings and carbon costs—will not be the case, why did we end up with a cost-benefit analysis that contained those projections? What is the case for having projections that the Government apparently do not believe for one minute are likely to occur? I would be grateful if she will address that point.

One of the things that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said, in paragraph 28, was:

“The central scenario assumes an increase in the size of the HGV fleet able to use gaseous fuel from the current 500 to 7,400 by 2020, that 12.5% of fuel used is renewable gaseous fuel and a 50/50 displacement split between the two types of biofuels. These are modelling assumptions. They do not as the CBA explains … ‘represent today’s mix of biofuels’”.

I am grateful to the Minister for having set out the Government’s response straight away, but I am still a little puzzled about why we have ended up with a document that has raised scenarios which, as I understand it from the Minister’s speech, the Government are now saying are extremely unlikely. Why include them in the first place if the Government do not believe that they are going to happen? What is the answer the point made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the 50/50 displacement split between two types of biofuels does not actually represent today’s mix of biofuels?

[Baroness Kramer]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his comments. It is standard practice to look at a range of impacts in developing forecasts. I came out of business, and the department very much follows the same pattern of talking to the industry and all the various relevant groups whose behaviour can impact on those forecasts and coming up with a forecast that seems reasonable and likely and in which it has a high level of confidence. In this case, from the perspective of the department, it was considered to be quite a conservative estimate. It was chosen as what could be called the central forecast in which the department has the greatest level of confidence, based on the work, research and analysis that it has done.

It is also standard practice to then say, “What if we were wrong?”, and to look at both a more pessimistic range and at what would happen if we could, reasonably, be more optimistic about the behaviour of certain factors. I would hate to see the department, in doing its analysis, simply going with the forecast in which it had the greatest confidence, without presenting, for other people to consider, what the impact would be of variations in the underlying factors, both downwards and upwards. That is fairly standard and a wise way to present issues. It is also a way to tease out concerns that then have to be answered.

The answer to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is that the department is convinced that all the logic and the discussions with all the various players indicate that the form of fuel most likely to be displaced is crop-based biodiesel rather than waste-based biodiesel, and because of that, the department has a great deal of confidence in the carbon benefits. Again, we raised those issues to discuss the cost-benefit analysis, as I think was entirely appropriate.

[Lord Rosser]

I asked the Minister about the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which ends up saying:

“For this reason, we draw this Order to the special attention of the House on the ground that it may”—

may, not will—

“imperfectly achieve its policy objective”.

Is that a view with which the Government agree or disagree:

“it may imperfectly achieve its policy objective”?

[Baroness Kramer]

The Government have a high degree of confidence in their central forecast. I have never seen forecasts turn out exactly right, to the right-hand side of the decimal point. Forecasting is an attempt to look into and understand the future, so it is never a perfect science. It is right that that is always recognised. The noble Lord will also recognise that biodiesel and biofuel prices will always be volatile in this industry. That affects the trend, and there will be variance year on year in actual behaviour. It is right that there is always an element of uncertainty in forecasting, but it is also right to use the research, the analysis and the discussion with the industry to come up with the scenario in which one has the greatest confidence. That is what I think the department has, entirely appropriately, done. It has shaped and presented its policy on that basis. Given that understanding that it would be sheer arrogance to present only one scenario without considering both upside and downside, this is a considered policy that I think, generally, has been widely welcomed by all players and participants.

I also point out that the amendment makes only a small change to the current market for RTFCs. Although we are concerned to make sure that our modelling is as good as it can be and that it does not have the arrogance to ignore the fact that there are variances and volatilities, we also recognise that, were either the upside or the downside scenario to prove to be the one that actually played out, the impact would be relatively small because this is only a very small change in the current market for RTFCs.

I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will feel that the Government have taken a rational approach and that he will feel capable of supporting the order.

Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) (Downloading of Data) Regulations 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, these draft regulations are being made to remove unnecessary gold-plating of EU rules by giving transport operators longer to download data of drivers’ hours from digital tachographs. The change was recommended in the Government’s Red Tape Challenge and Logistics Growth Review, and removes unnecessary restrictions on operators. It is estimated that it will save hauliers nearly £1 million a year, as well as giving some operators much-needed flexibility.

For the benefit of noble Lords who may not be aware, EU drivers’ hours rules apply to goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes and passenger vehicles with 10 or more seats, unless covered by a range of specific EU-wide exemptions and national derogations. Drivers and operators of vehicles that are in scope of these rules are required to fit and use a tachograph—a mechanical device that records, in real time, each driver’s driving time.

Operators are required to download data from digital tachographs and from drivers’ tachograph cards at regular intervals to check their drivers’ compliance with the rules relating to drivers’ hours. The 28-day maximum interval between downloads of the driver card data will remain unchanged. These regulations lengthen from 56 days to 90 days the maximum interval transport operators are permitted between data downloads, bringing GB hauliers in line with the maximum permitted under the EU rules.

The Government’s consultation on this change was published on the department’s website between December 2012 and February 2013. The proposed 90-day limit was welcomed by operators, particularly those involved in long, international journeys and tours, as the additional flexibility would alleviate the problems that they currently encounter trying to download the data while abroad. Enforcement agencies can require operators to produce records at any time, and can access a driver’s or vehicle’s records at the roadside, so this added flexibility for operators will not have implications for the enforcement of the drivers’ hours rules. In addition, most operators download data from the tachograph much more frequently as part of their routine maintenance checks.

Improving conditions for growth in the logistics sector is critical to the Government’s growth agenda, and this change forms part of a package of measures that the Government are bringing forward to help this vital industry, such as taking 76,000 mechanics and valets out of scope of burdensome EU rules on professional driver training and raising the speed limits for lorries on single and dual carriageway roads. This is a common-sense and industry-supported move to remove unnecessary restrictions on a key sector, helping it to make its contribution to Britain’s long-term economic plan. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the thinking behind the order, which increases the maximum interval that transport operators are permitted between downloads of drivers’ hours data from tachographs from 56 days to 90 days, which as has been said, is the maximum permitted interval under EU Commission Regulation No. 581/2010.

Will the Minister confirm that one of the effects of this change will be to enable operators who already seek to undermine drivers’ hours legislation to have an additional 34 days to break that legislation without detection and, as a result, the DVSA will potentially have a month less to prepare a prosecution case against historical drivers’ hours offences? If that is the case, what is the Government’s assessment of the impact of that on road safety, since on a fairly quick look-through it does not seem to be covered in the impact assessment?

Indeed, the impact assessment, dated last July, states that the DVSA thought that adopting the 90-day maximum European timescales could hinder enforcement as it could make it more difficult to gather evidence from prosecutions within the six-month deadline imposed by the courts. If Ministers have now managed to persuade the DVSA of the error of their thinking, perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is the case, and indicate either why the DVSA has misunderstood the situation, or what changes have been made to address the concerns raised by the DVSA.

There are already concerns about the DVSA’s enforcement capabilities. According to government answers, the relevant agency made 43,000 fewer checks under drivers’ hours regulations for foreign-registered HGVs at the roadside last year than four years ago and less than half the number of foreign HGV drivers breaking the drivers’ hours rules received prohibitions or fixed-penalty notices last year than four years ago. For what reason have the Government presided over this considerable reduction in both checks and prohibitions and fixed-penalty notices?

Under the current requirement to download data at least every 56 days, what is the Government’s assessment of the current percentage of operators who already breach drivers’ hours legislation to a greater or lesser degree? Once again, on a relatively quick look through the impact assessment, that issue does not seem to be addressed in it, yet non-compliance not only risks the safety of drivers and other road users but undermines fair competition and adversely affects the majority of operators who adhere to the rules. Have the Government considered bringing forward tougher measures and sanctions to enforce weekly rest rules, as have apparently the French and Belgian Governments recently?

The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that a “targeted industry consultation” was undertaken. Can the Minister clarify what is meant by that? Is it a euphemism for saying, “We consulted rather fewer people and organisations than normal”? The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the 20 responses received, which seems a relatively small number unless it turns out that the targeted consultation only invited that number or not many more to respond. Where did the 20 responses come from and how many were in favour of the change in the limit and how many voiced opposition or expressed reservations? How many people or organisations were invited to respond? Why could this information not have been provided in the Explanatory Memorandum under paragraph 8, headed “Consultation Outcome”? There appears to be some separate document on the outcome of the consultation. I do not think—I am prepared to be corrected—that reference is even made in the Explanatory Memorandum to such a document. All that I have been able to find is a passing reference to it tucked away on page 5 of the impact assessment.

The Explanatory Memorandum states that,

“many operators already download data from the vehicle unit more regularly than the current 56 days required”,

as some 80% of HGVs need more frequent maintenance checks than that, but for those involved in long international journeys and tours of more than 56 days, the extended interval to 90 days would alleviate, as the Minister has said, a number of problems encountered when trying to download data while abroad.

Why, in order to address a problem faced by what I presume is a minority of operators involved in extended journeys and tours abroad, is it necessary to increase the limit to a maximum 90 days for all operators when it seems that many of them already download data more regularly than the current 56 days? How assiduously has the department tried to address the problems facing operators who are abroad for more than 56 days without changing the requirement for those operators who are not in that position?

We do not intend to oppose the order, but it would nevertheless help if the Minister could respond to the points that I have raised and provide some information on what the limit is in other comparable EU economies such as France and Germany, particularly as the impact assessment seeks to imply, but does not clearly state, that the change would bring us into line with our European counterparts.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I shall start by responding to the questions asked about the consultation—there may be some that I cannot cover because I do not have sufficient information at the moment, in which case we will be glad to write. The respondents were hauliers, Unite, traffic commissioners, ACPO, the police and tachograph analysis companies. That is quite a wide range across the industry.

The noble Lord asked about the DVSA. Obviously, we followed up its response to the consultation, and from those discussions our understanding is that it believes its enforcement powers, which enable it to access this information at any time, are the important measure which supports its enforcement activity. Therefore we are comfortable that we are not creating additional problems here for the DVSA. Indeed, the noble Lord will know—and this goes back to the whole question of safety which he discussed—that, increasingly, the whole approach to enforcement has been intelligence-led. That has always been true, but it has become even more so. He will be aware of the London task force, which I believe started its work in October 2013. That is a combined effort by the DVSA, Transport for London, the department and the Met to use a targeted approach, and it has been very successful in London by, again, using intelligence, so that the knowledge of the operators to helps drive the enforcement process, rather than simply using a random process which might have been more prevalent in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

I am sure that interruptions to the flow will only improve matters. I was talking about enforcement when we took a break for the Division. One of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised was whether the DVSA was doing sufficient checks. He is right that the number of checks is down but, as a result of the enhanced targeting I described, there has been a quite dramatic increase in the effectiveness of those checks. On drivers’ hours the prohibition rate has risen from 15.7% in 2009-10 to 18.1% in 2013-14, and on roadworthiness from 31.8% in 2009-10 to 37.7% in 2013-14.

[Lord Rosser]

In the light of that, those figures still mean that the number of prohibitions and fixed penalty notices has gone down. The percentage may have gone up, but that should be compared with the large reduction in the number of checks, prohibitions and fixed penalty notices. What is a relatively small increase in the percentage surely still means that the number of checks, prohibitions and fixed penalty notices has gone down. Would the Minister confirm this?

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, surely what we are all looking for is effectiveness, which we need. Having a more effective way of tackling this problem strikes me as important, since the issue we are looking at is the recording of tachograph information.

[Lord Rosser]

I am sorry, is the Minister arguing that having a reduction in the number of checks, prohibitions and fixed penalty notices, which she has not denied, makes it more effective?

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I am simply arguing that the important thing is catching those who are breaking the law and breaking the rules, and to do so effectively. The mode of working that has now been adopted is more effective. Surely effectiveness is something that we are all seeking to achieve.

Going back to the subject of this regulation, one of the key elements is the downloading of driver data. That interval for doing so remains 28 days. Operators remain responsible for their drivers being in compliance—that has not changed either. The noble Lord noted that, for most companies, the common way of downloading the vehicle data is simply to do it at the time of maintenance on the vehicle, which for most companies is more frequently even than 56 days. The outer time limit and the actuality are not in fact particularly closely linked. The way that operators work means that the data are downloaded far more regularly.

The noble Lord also asked about countries in continental Europe and what benchmarks they were using. I can tell him that France, Austria, Belgium, Germany and Italy all have 90-day limits. That may give him some comfort that we are working within the same kind of range as continental Europe.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister quite rightly referred again to the problems being faced by operators that have vehicles abroad on extended journeys; the maximum of 90 days will certainly make life easier for them. However, they are a relatively small percentage of the number covered. I asked how assiduously the department has tried to address the problems facing operators abroad for more than 56 days without changing the requirement for operators that are not in that position, in light of what the Minister has repeated—that most of them do it more frequently than every 56 days. Why could it not have been a more targeted approach to address where the problem apparently lies?

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, one of the reasons for having a consultation, which the industry was widely aware of, was to provide an opportunity to come up with other mechanisms. This one appears to have an appropriate benefit in giving that greater and necessary flexibility to operators who have vehicles travelling overseas, but it does not create additional enforcement issues domestically. As the noble Lord said, most operators download the data more frequently anyway. We have moved towards a pattern of enforcement that is based far more on intelligence than on random checks. A random turn-up at an operator is not likely; it would be an intelligence-led arrival at an operator’s premises.

There is also the regular process of enforcement through approaches such as that of the London task force. There are now thoughts about whether this approach could be taken in places such as Manchester. Using that intelligence-led information and using the opportunity to enforce readings of both the driver and the vehicle unit tachometers at the roadside are among the primary tools of enforcement.

Therefore, making this change does not seem to us to undermine the enforcement process. It provides some additional flexibility for companies which have vehicles overseas and which have had problems trying to meet the 56-day benchmark simply because their vehicle is somewhere on the continent. Although it may be a relatively small change—as I admit it is—it is surely no bad thing to lift a burden of about £1 million off the industry, particularly in the highly competitive world in which companies must currently operate.

The case for making these changes is there is no weakening of the key enforcement mechanisms, which remain in place, and that enforcement mechanisms are more effective today than they have been historically—which surely has to be a good thing. The download of the drivers’ card, which is the primary method for measuring drivers’ hours, continues to be every 28 days; the download of data from the vehicle at 90 days, which in a sense is back-up or a cross-check, is not causing, as we understand it, any concerns to either the enforcement or the operators. The noble Lord said, “Well, surely this is unfair to good operators”, but operators have not come to us and said, “Don’t do this”, and there are many good operators based in the UK who surely would have raised that issue if they felt that it was a concern.

Therefore, with all those issues in mind—and as I say, if I have missed out on specific questions that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised, I will try to get back to him in writing—I commend the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I think that the Minister said that she would write to me on the issue of the consultation and how many people or organisations were invited to respond, since I am still not sure what a “targeted industry consultation” is a euphemism for, and clearly it means something. On the face of it, 20 responses does not seem a particularly high number, but that begs the question of how many were invited. I asked how many had voiced opposition or reservations about the changes, and I appreciate that the Minister said right at the beginning that she would respond subsequently to me on the consultation. However, I would also be grateful, since I do not think that I have had a clear answer to the question, if, when the Minister comes to reply, she could confirm or deny that the number of checks, prohibitions and fixed penalty notices has gone down over the past four years. The answer to that question is either yes or no, because I am still not clear how a reduction—which is what I think it has been—actually improves the situation. Perhaps the Minister could address that in the letter she will send to me on the consultation.

[Baroness Kramer]

I will be very glad to do that, because our target, obviously, is safety, and that is the absolute standard we have to go by. With that understanding, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will be satisfied.

Road Safety Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Road Safety Act (Consequential Amendments) Order, which was laid before the House on 16 January, be considered.

The driving licence paper counterpart is to be abolished from 8 June 2015. The primary legislative changes that provide for this were included in the Road Safety Act 2006, and will be brought into force on the same day as this order. This order amends several additional pieces of primary and secondary legislation, many of which were enacted since 2006, that include references to the paper counterpart.

Old-style paper licences are not being abolished and will remain valid documents. The driving licence paper counterpart has been issued since the photocard driving licence was introduced in 1998. The main function of the paper counterpart that is issued with the photocard licences has been to show provisional driving entitlement and penalty points or driving disqualifications. The counterpart was necessary because the EU driving licence directives, with which every member state must comply, do not allow provisional driving entitlement or endorsement details to be displayed on the photocard. This meant that introducing a counterpart was, at the time, the only way this information could be provided for individual drivers and for them to then share that information, if they needed to, with those who required it for driving entitlement validation or enforcement purposes.

The primary powers to abolish the paper counterpart were included in the Road Safety Act 2006. We intend to enact these provisions by commencement of Section 10 and Schedule 3 of the Act, which are to be brought into force on the same day as this order by commencement order.

The secure electronic inquiry services needed to share driver data to replace the counterpart were not available in 2006. Since then, there has been significant development of online services and this Government are committed to developing the wider use of digital services as a key element of providing improved customer services. The paper counterpart was identified as an area of unnecessary bureaucracy and burden. This Government have made a clear commitment to remove such unnecessary burden under the Red Tape Challenge initiative, and abolishing the counterpart will result in significant savings for motorists. The paper counterpart will be replaced with a digital service that will enable customers and stakeholders to access their driving licence details securely. This will be an online service, called Share Driving Licence, which will enable individual drivers to check their own information and share it, as they need to, with a third party who will be able to securely view the up-to-date driver record digitally and securely.

Protecting individual driver data is of paramount concern. The Share Driving Licence service enables customers to generate a one-time use authentication code which they can then share with a third party to enable them to access the relevant information held on the DVLA’s driver record. This online service ensures that control remains in the hands of customers, giving them the power to share or not share the information.

There will also be an assisted digital inquiry service for those who are unable or do not want to use the online service themselves. The assisted service will provide two options. A customer can telephone the DVLA’s contact centre, which will provide them with a one-time use access code that the customer can then share with a third party. Alternatively, businesses can call the DVLA’s driving licence checking service. This is a three-way conversation between the customer, the third party and the DVLA to verify information from the individual’s driver record. These services are in addition to the online inquiry service that the DVLA has already made available to motor insurance companies, called My Licence. This enables them to check the status of the driving licence, with the consent of the driver, when giving a quote and when a policy is renewed.

Pre-photocard paper driving licences are not being abolished and will remain valid documents showing the categories of vehicle an individual can drive. However, they will no longer be endorsed with new penalty point information. The digital driver record held by the DVLA will be the legal record of penalty point information. So drivers with old-style paper driving licences will also need to use the new inquiry services to access the most up-to-date information on penalty points and endorsements.

I recognise the need to minimise any confusion between the paper counterpart and the pre-photocard paper driving licence. This is one of the key messages that features prominently in the wide-ranging communications activities being carried out now and will continue to be developed as abolition draws nearer. The DVLA is working with customers and businesses to help individual drivers understand the change.

Around 90% of motorists do not have penalty points and rarely need their paper counterpart. If a driver loses it, they must obtain a replacement licence at a cost of £20. The requirement for drivers to hold a paper counterpart to their driving licence is no longer considered by motorists to be the most effective way of enabling people to demonstrate their up-to-date penalty point information. The current arrangements impose unnecessary costs on motorists and can perpetuate the use of inaccurate and out-of-date information.

Generally, abolishing the paper counterpart has been welcomed by businesses. However, there was some industry concern about the original planned date for abolition, which was 31 December 2014. Some organisations advised that they were not ready to operate without the counterpart. My department has listened to these concerns and has delayed abolishing the counterpart until 8 June 2015. This revised implementation date will allow businesses more time to work with the DVLA on introducing the changes and communicate the change to their customers.

This department has worked closely with enforcement partners, including the Ministry of Justice and the Scottish Court Service, to ensure that they are prepared for the change. The processing of road traffic offences will continue without any issues as fixed penalty offices and courts are prepared for when the paper counterpart is abolished. Abolishing the paper counterpart will save motorists around £17 million per year. The changes before your Lordships support the Government’s commitment to improving public services through increased digital delivery and will realise significant savings to motorists. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the background to, and purpose of, this order. I hope that she feels on top of the detail of the order to a rather greater extent than I do.

Since their introduction in 1998, all drivers issued with a Great Britain photocard driving licence have also been issued with an A4 paper counterpart because under an EU directive provisional entitlement or endorsement details were not allowed to be displayed on the photocard, and there was a need to provide this information for those who might be required to give details of any current convictions, disqualifications and other penalties, or in the case of a driver with a substantive licence the need, if it arose, to verify an additional provisional driving entitlement.

In 2004, a public consultation indicated that more than 80% of those responding supported the paper counterpart being abolished, with the overall preference being that instead the information on the paper counterpart should be made obtainable by secure electronic links to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database. However, as the Minister said, the Government at the time did not have the necessary electronic system in place to abolish the paper counterpart.

As I understand it, this order amends primary and secondary legislation in the light of the commencement of the parts of the Road Safety Act 2006 which provide for the abolition of the driving licence counterpart in Great Britain. These parts of the 2006 Act will be brought into force on the same day as this order by the Road Safety Act 2006 (Commencement No. 11 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2015.

Apart from the paper counterpart displaying details of a driver’s current convictions, disqualifications and penalties, it is also used by the freight industry to carry out safety checks of commercial vehicle drivers, by the rental and leasing industry to verify customer driving licence details for car hire, and for other employment and enforcement purposes.

We are not opposed to the order but I would like to raise a few points. If I raise points that are answered in the impact assessment, I offer my apologies in advance for not having read it as thoroughly as I should have done. Under the arrangements to be introduced in the light of the abolition of the driving counterpart, those entitled to will be able to check securely information held on the document via a new electronic inquiry database, including driving entitlements and endorsements. Drivers will also be able to print their information. Who or what will be held responsible for making sure that the information held on the inquiry database in respect of each individual is accurate? How will an individual know whether that information held about them is accurate, bearing in mind the potential consequences if it is wrong? Is it the case that an individual will be expected themselves to check the information on the database for accuracy, and will there be any redress if it is incorrect and the individual has been penalised in some way as a result? If an individual finds incorrect information about themselves on the database, will they have to use a premium rate telephone line to ring up and challenge the accuracy of the entry?

It is essential that the abolition of the paper counterpart is managed effectively—unlike the reorganisation and merger of agencies last year, which was not. Abolition will not be successful unless a replacement electronic service is effective, easy to use and up to date. How secure will the information on the database be? Are the Government satisfied that people’s personal information on the database cannot be hacked into by others who should not be able to see or have that information?

As the Minister has said, the move away from the paper counterpart was originally planned for the last day of last year, but will not now happen until June, with, as she has indicated, the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association and Freight Transport Association having called for an extension to ensure that the online alternative was fit for purpose. As I understand it, the BVRLA is still saying it is vital that the agencies are given an adequate budget to publicise and provide guidance around key events such as the recent abolition of the paper tax disc, which is another issue from the one that we are discussing, and the impending removal of the paper driving licence counterpart, which we are discussing. Have the Government responded to that call and, if so, in what way? I appreciate that in her introductory comments the Minister made reference to this, but if she could say a little more about what the Government are doing to respond to that call from the BVRLA, it would be helpful. Given the experience of the tax disc abolition, including the DVLA’s website crashing, what assurances can the Government give that the abolition of the driving licence paper counterpart will be properly managed, explained and communicated to the public and business?

On the potential costs and benefits, the impact assessment states that there could be additional costs for some businesses as checking driving details online could take longer and the cost of calls to the DVLA’s premium rate telephone lines to access the information will increase. If the information is in the impact assessment, I apologise for asking this but could the Minister indicate what these costs will amount to?

The documentation also indicates that a range of inquiry services will be established for accessing driving licence details online, including the use of a premium rate telephone number, which, once again, the Minister referred to in her introductory comments. The impact assessment refers on page 7 to the DVLA receiving 1,207,104 premium line calls last year. On page 12 that figure is repeated, but another figure is also given: namely, that 940,000 premium line telephone inquiries relate to the general public. Perhaps the Minister could say whether that figure of 940,000 is included in the higher 1,207,104 figure or is in addition to it.

I understand that as a response to serious concerns about the Government’s use of premium rate phone lines, the Cabinet Office issued guidance stating that the use of premium rate phone numbers is inappropriate. If that is the case and the Minister accepts that that is in the Cabinet Office guidelines, how does the use of a premium rate phone number in this instance fit in with those guidelines? What cheaper alternatives, such as the 03 range, were considered, and why were they rejected?

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the issues raised. If I miss some of the questions, we will try to catch those up afterwards. I understand that for the ordinary motorist the number to call for the DVLA is a standard-rate number—an 0300 number—0300 790 6801. That may answer a number of the noble Lord’s concerns.

In terms of costs to businesses, we have acknowledged that this may add somewhat to the burden of the car rental industry. However, we can compare the advantages to the motorist. It seems that the benefit is significant. The noble Lord may know anecdotally from friends and family that trying to find the paper counterpart is one of the great annoyances as so many people manage to mislay or lose them, which creates problems in having to apply again, with all the costs and inconvenience involved. The benefits to the motorist are significant, which outweighs what I suspect will be rather minor additional burdens to the industry, outlined by the noble Lord. We appreciate that the industry will need to manage this process effectively.

The DVLA will use its many regular communications with the public through a whole variety of channels. It will send out information leaflets with all full drivers’ licences, which equates to 1 million drivers a month getting a leaflet to outline this. The DVLA is working with industry stakeholders, such as trade associations for the car hire companies and the motor industry, to make sure that they have up-to-date information that they can communicate to their members and the motoring public. A campaign page has been created on GOV.UK to provide the Government with general information and the DVLA will use all those forms of media, which I confess I do not look at much myself, but a large part of the world does, such as web chat, social media, information videos and blogs to maximise awareness. A substantial communications campaign sits behind this, but it is also true that when people call to make bookings with a car hire company, they are typically told what documents to bring with them. Therefore, that is an opportunity for the car hire company to make it clear that people need to come along with an access code.

Change is never without the occasional hiccup but there will certainly be a substantial communication process. Indeed, there probably will be additional calls. The DVLA is expecting calls from people who do not feel comfortable going online to obtain information. That, by the way, is a free service. The DVLA is staffing up to be able to respond appropriately to that additional level of demand.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked if the information was secure, as government is responsible for a great deal of data affecting the lives of many people. Therefore, the levels of security are always significant—no less so in this case than in any other. I can give the noble Lord the confidence that this will not be treated in a more casual way than important information that is held on individuals by government departments and agencies. In terms of the accuracy of the data, because an individual can go online and check for themselves, it gives them an opportunity to make sure that the data are accurate. They can also call the DVLA if they have some concern. In many ways this gives them an opportunity to be sure that they are up to date in the way that the paper counterpart, sitting in a back drawer and possibly long forgotten, does not.

[Lord Rosser]

We are not opposing the order, so I am not making this point on the basis that we are. I am not sure that I see a way around this, so in a sense I am asking the Minister to clarify that the onus is actually on the individual to check on a reasonably regular basis that the information held about them is accurate. For many individuals, the first indication they may have that something is wrong will be when they are denied something that they are seeking, or find out that something is on the record that should not be which has adverse consequences for them. It is only then that they will check on the database and find out that the information is wrong. I have no solution as to how you get around that, but that seems to be the situation.

[Baroness Kramer]

I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that at present the DVLA accesses its information from the courts and fixed penalty services, so that will be exactly the same pathway, except that it will be available for an individual to check on a live basis—for example, if they have forgotten to send in their counterpart to get it endorsed. I think that there are probably potentially fewer potential trip-ups with the new system than under the old one.

I am trying to remember other questions that the noble Lord asked, but I think I have covered most of his concerns around this issue. As I say, we will look back through Hansard and if there are particular issues that I have not covered in full, we will be glad to follow them up in writing. If he is satisfied with that response, I hope that he will feel able to support this order.

Draft National Policy Statement for National Networks

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for pointing out that the Department for Transport has wiped out Lowestoft. Looking at the map, I think that that extends also to part of Norfolk as Great Yarmouth seems to have suffered the same fate. I hope the department will realise that those two places still exist and manage to produce another map.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss both the draft national policy statement for national networks and the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, including those related to the accuracy of the traffic forecasts and the assumptions behind them. I do not know whether the fact that we are speaking in a not-exactly-packed Chamber reflects a lack of interest in this issue or simply the fact that this is the last business on a Thursday with always the prospect beforehand that that could have meant being here until 7 pm.

As well as the draft national policy statement, it has also been helpful to see the House of Commons Transport Committee report on it, which was published yesterday. The draft statement published by the Department for Transport consultation sets out the policy against which the Secretary of State will make decisions on applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects on the strategic road and rail network. It is the second such policy statement, the first having covered ports, and covers England only.

The Planning Act 2008 gives Select Committees a formal role in the process by which national policy statements are agreed, because recommendations by a Select Committee must be addressed by the Secretary of State before the national policy statement comes into force. The Select Committee can also request a debate on the document before it receives final parliamentary approval. The Transport Select Committee has apparently indicated that it intends to do just that.

The Select Committee has made a number of detailed recommendations that it says are aimed at making the document clearer and more useful. Presumably, the Minister will say that the Secretary of State will consider those recommendations. The draft policy statement states that our road and rail networks are already under considerable pressure and indicates that, on the road network, it is estimated that around 16% of all travel time in 2010 was spent delayed in traffic. Road traffic is forecast to increase by 30% by 2030 and by more than 40% by 2040; and without action, congestion and crowding will constrain the economy and reduce quality of life. The factors leading to the forecast increase are stated to be increased growth, a rising population—up by 11 million between 2010 and 2035—and a fall in the cost of fuel.

The draft statement states that, without action, the proportion of travel time spent delayed in traffic is forecast to increase from 16% to 24% by 2040, amounting to a 150% increase in the number of working days lost to congestion each year from 40 million to 100 million. Can the Minister tell us—if not in her response today then perhaps in a letter—how those calculations have been made and the assumptions behind them? They are not immediately obvious.

The strategic road network to which the draft policy statement relates includes only trunk roads and motorways in England where the Secretary of State is the traffic authority. The development of local roads will be nationally significant infrastructure projects only if an order has been made under Section 35 of the Planning Act 2008 designating such a development as a nationally significant infrastructure project. Does that mean that the Secretary of State would seek to use this national policy statement as the primary basis for making decisions on development consent applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects on the strategic road network without regard to the impact on local roads or the plans of the traffic authority for those local roads when, particularly in urban areas, the traffic and transport authority may well be pursuing measures to manage demand rather than pursuing the apparent aims of this draft policy statement, which some have suggested, including in this debate, is rather closer to the “predict and provide” policy for roads that was abandoned in the 1990s? I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that point in a few minutes.

I ask that point in the context that this policy statement gives no details of the extent or location of nationally significant projects on the strategic road network but clearly indicates that new and additional roads are anticipated, as well as increases in the capacity of existing trunk roads and motorways. As the Transport Select Committee put it, the Government are seeking to accommodate increasing demand for roads by building more infrastructure rather than seeking to manage demand. Perhaps the Minister can say something about the projected extent and mileage of new trunk roads and motorways against which we should be considering the content, significance and impact of this draft national policy statement and its traffic forecasts.

As I understand it, one of the key purposes of having the draft national policy statement is to speed up the decision-making process that we often go through before major projects can proceed. However, the concern that has been expressed in a number of circles is that this national policy statement in relation to roads is also about laying down criteria, or lack of specific criteria, which would make it considerably more unlikely than is the case at the moment that any scheme, or part of any scheme, could be rejected since the key overriding, all-important factor appears to be the need to provide the increases in road capacity to meet the Government’s forecast of the increase in road traffic. The draft policy statement states:

“In their current state, without development, the national networks will act as a constraint to sustainable economic growth, quality of life and wider environmental objectives. The Government has therefore concluded that there is a compelling need for development of the national networks. The Examining Authority and the Secretary of State should therefore start its assessment of applications for infrastructure covered by this NPS on that basis”.

I should like the Minister to look at nationally significant infrastructure projects on the strategic road network over, say, the past 15 years and say which were changed, rejected or not proceeded with in the first place under the criteria then applicable but which the department now feels would have been given clearance under the criteria laid down in this draft national policy statement, to which I have just referred. Perhaps the Minister could give some examples of the kinds of schemes that would not be acceptable when they have to be judged against the statement in this draft NPS, which I quoted a few moments ago, that:

“In their current state, without development, the national networks will act as a constraint to sustainable economic growth, quality of life and wider environmental objectives”.

What protection, for example, will there be for our national parks? What scope or requirement will there be to consider and assess other options or proposals rather than those being put forward, and what weight will be given to the considerations mentioned by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw? On that score, I certainly share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about the impact of road noise on those living in the surrounding areas.

On the railways, the draft statement forecasts welcome continuing growth in railway passenger and freight traffic, although it does not cover the biggest project of all—namely, HS2, for which there is a separate Bill. However, it says:

“High speed rail would offer the opportunity for a shift to rail from air and road, by delivering improved connectivity between major conurbations and economic centres through improved journey times”.

Few would disagree with that, but it would be helpful if the Minister could say how the current lack of any proposed link between HS2 and HS1 is in line with the Government’s stated objective, to which I have just referred.

There is a need to ensure that rail investment is not confined to London and the south-east. Improved rail links help to stimulate growth and are a factor taken into account by businesses in deciding where to locate, relocate or expand, and that applies equally outside London and the south-east.

The draft statement refers to relatively modest rail infrastructure interventions being able to deliver significant capacity benefits but—unless I am mistaken, and I may be—it does not appear to make a reference to the reopening of stations despite saying in paragraph 2.25 that,

“the railway must offer a safe and reliable route to work, facilitate increases in both business and leisure travel, support regional and local public transport to connect communities with public services, with workplaces and with each other”.

There is, for example, a campaign by residents of Saltford, in Somerset, to reopen their railway station on the line between Bath and Bristol, a campaign which our local party and its candidate are supporting. Perhaps the Minister could say what assistance this draft policy statement will be to them in pursuing their campaign to improve accessibility for local people and help to take cars off the road.

The draft statement, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, refers in some detail to strategic rail freight interchanges and projected increases in rail freight, which I am sure we all welcome. However, although I am not sure that I am right, I think that the first mention of the word “bus” does not appear until page 25 of the draft statement, despite the fact that the report deals with roads. The statement rightly refers to rail freight interchanges but says nothing in the context of investment in roads, the national coach network, bus services, bus lanes, rail/bus interchanges and the role of the bus network in taking traffic off our roads. What is the Government’s position on bus and coach travel in the context of this or any other likely draft national policy statements?

I appreciate that this is a draft document and that the Government will give consideration to the recommendations of the Transport Select Committee—which appears to have been somewhat less than enthusiastic about the Government’s approach. It is less than enthusiastic not least because, in its view, the statement should specify more types of needed transport schemes—such as enhancements to the rail network to promote east-west connectivity, better road and rail connections to ports and airports and to parts of the country not well served by those networks, and schemes to promote regional economic development. The committee also called on the Department for Transport to address criticisms of its road demand forecasts more explicitly. This debate offers the Minister the opportunity to do just that in the light of the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I hope that she will take the opportunity.

A number of concerns and questions have been raised this afternoon about the draft statement, matters such as the basis on which projects will be assessed and the criteria that will or will not be given significant weight when the assessment is made. I hope that the Minister will respond to all those points either today or subsequently in writing. I am sure she will agree that those points all deserve a full response.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this debate on the Government’s draft national policy statement for national networks—the NPS. This House has a really important role in scrutinising the draft NPS. This debate will help the Government to prepare their final version so I am very appreciative of the comments that have been made today. If noble Lords wish in the future to feed in further comments, I will be glad to take those on board.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bradshaw, for giving me a little heads-up in advance of some of the issues that concern them. I hope that that will help with my response today but I am aware that we have covered a very wide range of issues. If I inadvertently miss certain issues, I will be glad to follow up afterwards. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for the truncated map. We got it right on the rail freight map which manages to fit neatly into the page. We will get it corrected. It was not intentional but I fear merely a matter of pressing a button at the wrong moment. In terms of the issues around Sizewell C I do not have those details with me today, so I will have to respond to him separately, if I may.

The NPS is a specific document with a specific purpose. It is a technical planning policy statement that will comprise the decision-making framework for nationally significant road, rail and strategic rail freight interchange projects. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made the point that it is crucial that rail freight interchange is included on that list. He asked for greater granularity in the report and I will pass that back in terms of consultation. I suspect that on this issue he knows granularity more than anyone else in this House, but I will take it back and try to get him a more detailed response.

The draft NPS requires a consideration of whether a scheme strikes the right balance between national need and local needs and priorities. I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who raised the issue of how the national and local impact on each other. The document is quite explicit in requiring that balance to be struck. If the adverse impacts are greater than the benefits, or if a development fails certain planning tests, then development consent must be refused. In considering applications for development consent for nationally significant road and rail schemes, the decision-maker will need to take account of the full range of environmental, social and economic impacts.

As the noble Lord will know, the key reason for having the NPS as directed within the Planning Act 2008 was to remove protracted debate around issues of national policy from public inquiries, not to eliminate a proper review of schemes. I will come to this point later when I talk about environmental issues, but I advise anyone who has a moment to look at Section 5 of the draft policy statement, which has detailed sections on environmental issues which noble Lords may find helpful regarding some of the questions that they have raised.

There is a strong case for development of road and rail networks. The NPS identifies a compelling need to drive economic growth, improve quality of life and deliver better environmental performance. The national road and rail networks that connect our cities, regions and international gateways play a significant part in supporting economic growth and productivity as well as facilitating passenger business and leisure journeys across the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why we do not specifically mention buses, coaches or stations. This is a document that operates at the higher levels, so we talk about roads but we do not talk about cars either. We are talking about the planning infrastructure. When it comes to stations, which he specifically mentioned, he will know that we have had an aggressive programme of reopening, improving and adding accessibility to stations, which is long-needed. I am very pleased that we have significant investment in that area and will continue it.

Our national networks are already under considerable pressure and that pressure is expected to increase further, as the long-term drivers of demand to travel, which are GDP and population, are forecast to increase substantially over the coming years. All of us recognise that without action, congestion and crowding will constrain the economy and reduce quality of life.

Some noble Lords talked about percentage increases. To give one example, on the road network in 2010—I think that we can say it will be worse now—it is estimated that 16% of all travel time was spent delayed in traffic. In London, on the rail network, some services are 7% over capacity. Those are the kinds of numbers that we simply cannot continue to live with.

We all recognise that development of the national networks can unlock regional economic growth and regeneration, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas. Broader economic, safety and accessibility goals generate requirements for development because it is the way that we can fix safety issues, improve the environment and enhance accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.

The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Rosser, raised concerns about traffic forecasts and the broader appraisal process. It is true that we have well established forecasting and appraisal frameworks that have been subjected to internal and external review over many years, and we continuously update them. It is true that over recent years we have overstated traffic forecasts while in previous years we might have understated them, but it is not a problem of the model; rather, the problem is the inputs into the model. The key drivers that are the inputs into the model—population, GDP and oil prices—we all called wrongly some years ago. If you were to put in the correct drivers, the model would give you traffic forecasts that are within 1.3% of observed traffic. So the model itself, for the narrow task for which it is designed, is a reasonably good one, but of course the inputs have to be right. For that reason we now present a range of forecasts and scenarios. But even when we take the lowest forecast using scenarios that take the most conservative possible views on the various drivers, we can still see very significant pressure on the rail and road networks in the form of increased congestion and crowding. It is crucial to understand that the NPS does not mean that national traffic forecasts are simply used to justify individual developments. Each individual scheme needs to use local models to understand local impacts and will be subject to a full transport business case.

Quite a number of comments were made on traffic forecasts, benefit-cost ratios and those kinds of formulas. I should like to make two comments on them. The first picks up on the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw of small time savings being a distortion. There are occasions when small time savings can be extremely useful. For example, a tiny time saving at Reading station may not be of particular value to an individual in a way they can name, but it will give an excellent proxy for whether there is enough platform capacity and whether people can move around the station appropriately without overcrowding and congestion occurring. Small time savings can be very useful measures, but I agree that they have to be used under appropriate circumstances. However, it is important that we dethrone, if that is the word, the use of things like benefit-cost ratios and traffic forecasts. They are not litmus tests that say “go” or “no go” on projects; rather, they are one of the tools that have to be used along with other work, analysis and judgment to decide whether a project is appropriate.

As a politician perhaps I am sometimes guilty of using such measures as a proxy for a more complex explanation—the media certainly do so—and I think we need to make sure that we move away from that. I come from a finance background where this kind of analysis is useful, but it is a tool and its limitations have to be understood. There will be no formula we can devise that does not have limitations. All kinds of appraisals come in to the broader decision, including the impact on regeneration and economic growth, which is now highlighted in a way that it never was historically. When talking about the specifics of these appraisal tools, which was the subject of a lot of the conversation today, we are in the process of engaging with an independent review. In October 2013 we committed to undertake a comprehensive survey of the latest theoretical and empirical evidence for the potential growth impacts of nationally significant infrastructure and programmes of expenditure. This work is under way and is being led by Professor Tony Venables at Oxford University, who may be known to some noble Lords. The department will consider whether any further external scrutiny is needed, so we are conscious of the issue.

The NPS supports a significant and balanced package of improvements across the road and rail networks including—this is set out clearly in the document—improvements in safety, resilience, maintenance and environmental performance, and stresses access for cyclists and pedestrians. Noble Lords will know that many of the programmes we have had in the department, especially the local sustainable transport fund, have been key to supporting local communities and improving cycling and pedestrian facilities, and have had a big impact. It has to be recognised that improvements to the road and rail networks supported by the NPS are accompanied by policies to support sustainable transport.

Some stakeholders have criticised our roads policy as being “predict and provide”—I think the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was one of those who said this—or an excuse for large-scale—

[Lord Rosser]

I did not actually say it myself but said it was how it was being described by some, including in the debate today. I think that was fair comment. I did not actually make the statement myself.

[Baroness Kramer]

I stand corrected. It was a fair comment, and was certainly mentioned today, so I will just take it up. I apologise for misattributing the statement. I assure the House that it is not the case. Government policy on roads is not that outdated approach of predicting and providing for all future traffic growth, irrespective of cost and environmental and social impacts. It is about sensible and sustainable development where there is a strong justification based on the transport business case. Again, that is not just about numbers; it needs judgment as well.

Development of the strategic road network is primarily about upgrading the existing network. Almost 40% of the investment designated for this Parliament and the next is for maintenance. Over 80% of the schemes in the current programme are smart motorways. I hope that gives some clearer understanding.

It is very clear in the NPS that road improvements must be delivered in an environmentally sensitive way and must look to improve environmental performance wherever possible. Much environmental good can be done as part of an investment programme. I will talk a little more about noise in a moment but it is an opportunity for introducing noise-reducing surfaces and sustainable drainage, for eliminating bottlenecks in the system which push up emissions and for ameliorating the worsening air quality that comes of course with congestion.

At the same time as we are in the process of doing that, the Government are committed to decarbonising our roads. Over the past four years and the coming four years, an investment of £1 billion in ultra low-emission vehicles and new fuel efficiency regulation means that we expect to see greenhouse gas emissions from motoring dropping by about 20% in 2030 from present-day levels.

My noble friend Lord Bradshaw raised the issue of noise, to which I said I would return. The NPS is very clear that, for new schemes, scheme promoters must undertake works to mitigate the impacts, for example through low-noise surfacing, noise barriers and earthworks. Low-noise surfacing is now used as a matter of course in all new schemes. Over the next Parliament, as I said, maintenance of the strategic network will lead to about 80% of the network being resurfaced with low-noise surfacing.

Air quality is another issue that was singled out. It is a problem that we cannot tackle with a single measure—it needs a fairly coherent approach. First, I would say that we have seen very significant improvements in road quality, largely because of cleaner cars and cleaner fuels. That has been important. Reducing congestion is an important way to improve air quality. Everyone in the House will be conscious of the exceptional levels of investment that are now going into the railway network, both to upgrade the existing system and to develop the new spine of a high-speed system. Again, because of modal shift, that is a very important way of tackling the air-quality problem. We are obviously putting in very significant funds: we announced just about a week ago the next £500 million for investments related to ultra low-emission vehicles. We are tackling that across a wide range. It is a very difficult issue to deal with in a national-level statement but your Lordships can see from the work that the Government are doing that we are applying a lot of attention to this and that we take the issue exceedingly seriously.

My noble friend Lord Bradshaw raised the issue of maintenance. I assure the House that we are investing very heavily in maintenance, resilience and pothole repairs, both on the strategic road network and on the local road network. As I said, almost 40% of the investment in our strategic roads in this and the next Parliament is for maintenance. For local roads, we are providing councils in England with more than £3.5 billion between 2011 and 2015 to maintain their roads. We are committed to providing just less than £6 billion between 2015 and 2021. Immediately following the flooding crisis, we released £183 million in funds to local councils to deal with the impact that would have had in terms of local road damage.

In addition, in the March 2014 Budget the Government announced a £200 million pothole fund for the 2014-15 financial year, £168 million of which is being made available for councils in England. I say that because obviously the NPS covers just England. That is enough to fix more than 3 million potholes. We have made it really clear that we do not expect this to be a “patch and mend” approach. We have given a very clear message to local authorities that they should also be undertaking planned preventive maintenance, and that when they repair a pothole they should ensure that it is right first time in order not to have to do a call-back, because that is very far from cost-effective, as well as being highly problematic for motorists.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is concerned that not enough is being done to support modal shift to rail freight. The Government strongly support that modal shift, which is why—in addition to the capacity-enhancement projects that are being supported through the rail investment strategy, which are primarily targeted at improving passenger service but will benefit freight as well—we have also, since 2007, allocated more than £500 million specifically for the development of a strategic rail freight network. The allocation of that money is determined by the rail freight industry so that we can be sure that it is addressing priorities.

Of course, electrification of the network can make a very significant difference. I know to my regret that between 1997 and 2010 we electrified only nine miles of railway. We now have a massive electrification programme under way. That is absolutely crucial but it takes time because we are playing catch-up. I think most of us would say that we wished we were not starting from here.

The incorporation of the SRFIs in this national networks NPS really should strengthen developers’ confidence by confirming parliamentary approval for the policy. I hope that we will see that. However, in relation to modal shift, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that we are not considering road pricing. That is not on the agenda. I am sorry, I meant my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. I am getting names wrong today; that one was completely unintentional. That is not a project that we are looking at. While I am discussing things that we are not looking at, we are not re-looking at concessionary fares. The protection of concessionary fares for older people is in statute and there is no wish whatever to revisit that.

[Baroness Kramer]

That probably has scope for a debate on another day, rather than within the context of the NPS. I do not mean to be cruel. I think it is an important issue but not for today. I wanted to leave no doubt that we are not re-examining concessionary fares.

There has been a lot of discussion of an integrated approach, which is very important and an area where we have to improve and build because historically—not just in transport—a lot of what we do has tended to be looked at in silos. There is a big cultural shift taking place. This document is only part of the range of documents that form our thinking around transport. We have strategic economic plans coming in from the LEPs now, as well as rail and road utilisation strategies, which feed in to the rail investment strategy and the forthcoming road investment strategy. Those give us some real opportunities to start looking at integration. I forget which noble Lord talked about HS2 but that is driving a lot of this rethinking, as we recognise that HS2 creates, particularly in the Midlands and in the north, an opportunity to establish connectivity. That needs be thought of alongside HS2 and not as some entirely separate process. In dealing with strategic economic plans, we recognise the link between infrastructure and economic growth. There are real changes going forward there. East-west links are an inherent part of that—that issue was raised by a number of noble Lords—and I consider it to be crucial.

I have only moments left, so let me finish by saying that the department received more than 5,800 responses to its consultation. Around 5,500 of those were responses to campaigns run by the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Campaign for Better Transport. I give an assurance that we will look at all the responses, as well as at the feedback that comes from the Transport Select Committee—a crucial document—and from this debate today. We intend to finalise the NPS later this year, in the autumn.

I thank everybody who has participated and ask the House to welcome at least the draft of this document, recognising that there will be a great deal more to add before it becomes final.

[Lord Rosser]

Before the Minister sits down, may I ask her whether she will look at the contributions that have been made and the questions and points that have been raised? I did not expect to receive answers to all the points that I raised today, but I would be grateful if she would indicate that she will look at what has been said and, where questions and points have been raised that she has not had the time to respond to, that a response will be given in writing.

Merchant Shipping (Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) Order 2014

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Greenway (CB)]

My Lords, I think the Minister was perhaps a bit premature in thanking noble Lords who are taking part in a rather rare maritime exercise in the House. I do not want to disabuse her, but I was not going to say anything at all. This order is a natural follow-on from what has happened before. I have no problems with it at all. The UK Chamber of Shipping also had no problems with it, so it is generally to be welcomed.

We have been fortunate in this country in that we have not had a major accident with a passenger ship since the “Herald of Free Enterprise” some 27 years ago. That was responsible for beefing up the amounts of compensation that can be paid to passengers for loss of life and luggage in those circumstances. Let us hope that that record continues although, as the Minister said, we are still suffering from these problems. We saw one in South Korea the other day, and the unfortunate incident with the “Costa Concordia” was another example. I welcome this order and wish it well.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I am in the same position as the Minister. Debates on maritime matters are all too rare. I do not think the Minister was expressing the view that she is a particular expert in this field, and I would certainly not claim to be. That may become horribly evident in the contribution I have to make.

As the Minister said, this order amends the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 in the light of our ratification of the International Maritime Organisation’s 2002 protocol to the Athens Convention 1974 relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea. Ratifying the 2002 protocol ensures that UK-flagged passenger vessels can be issued with correct international certification and enables the protocol to be extended to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, should they so wish. When the order was discussed in the other place a question was asked about what the Government’s accountability and jurisdiction would be if ships that are not UK-based, but are part of the Red Ensign group, chose to opt into these rules. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that point.

As the Minister said, the key provisions of the protocol have already been introduced into EU law—I think from the end of 2012—and implemented by the UK, but this order is needed to ratify the protocol, which came into force internationally on 23 April and incorporates the international elements. The 2002 protocol applies to international carriage only, but the order ensures the application of the Athens convention to domestic journeys within the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The 2002 protocol increases the liability limits for carriers that have been applicable in the event of accidents involving loss of life or personal injury and also requires carriers to maintain compulsory insurance on a strict liability basis, as well as providing claimants with the right to take direct action against the insurer. Under the order, the new limit of liability is, I think, the 400,000 special drawing rights. The Minister said that a special drawing right is currently equal to approximately 92 pence. It certainly fluctuates marginally since earlier in the year when it was being debated in the House of Commons the figure was given as approximately 93 pence.

The Government have also said that the further policy objective of the order is to revoke some redundant legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out which legislation is being revoked, bearing in mind that the Government’s objective appears to be that, for every new order introduced, two should be revoked. I am not clear what the two orders are that are being revoked.

The Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 10 that, although,

“external stakeholders were invited to contribute to the IA, the available evidence base continues to have a number of limitations”.

It then goes on to say:

“Given the significant uncertainties surrounding the impacts of this measure”,

relating to,

“the number of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies that … choose to ratify the … Protocol … and the limitations of the available evidence base, it has not been possible to monetise any of the costs and benefits in this IA”.

At least, that is my understanding of what it says. Yet when the order was discussed in the other place, the Minister described it as “short and highly technical”. I have always construed the reference to “highly technical” to mean “incomprehensible”. He said that not least because the,

“key provisions of the 2002 protocol have already been introduced into European Union law … and … implemented in the UK”.

The Minister in the other place said that the order therefore had,

“little practical effect on UK shipowners”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 3.]

I simply ask which is the correct version—that the order is short and highly technical with little practical effect on UK ship owners, as per the Minister in the House of Commons, or that, due to the significant uncertainties surrounding the impacts of the measure and the limitations of the available evidence base, as per the Explanatory Memorandum, monetising any of the costs and benefits of the order in the impact assessment is not possible and, by inference, would represent something of a voyage of discovery. Perhaps the Minister could indicate which horse of those alternatives she is backing, or, alternatively, say why what would appear to be two somewhat different views on the clarity and scope of this order are in fact saying precisely the same thing.

A further issue raised in the House of Commons was about the ships to which this order applies. In his response, the Government Minister said that,

“the classification of ships is determined by the area in which they operate and not necessarily the gross tonnage”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 8.]

However, because he was unable at that particular moment to give a definition of classification A and B vessels as referred to in the impact assessment, he undertook to write to the Committee. Can the Minister here provide that information and say whether the provisions of this order might be extended to other classes of ships?

A further question raised in the other place was about what steps the department was taking to ensure that information about the impact of the order was made available to ship owners and their passengers and customers. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what is happening on that issue. Of course, the answer to that may depend on whether she agrees with the Minister in the House of Commons that it is short and technical with little practical impact or with the Explanatory Memorandum, which appears to suggest otherwise. Finally, the Minister in the other place said that he was concerned to reduce the costs of the legislation around sulphur for UK shipping and, in particular, for the UK ferry industry. He went on to say that he had,

“asked the IMO to undertake an early review of the 2020 regulations”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 8.]

What exactly are the Government pressing for in that review?

We welcome the objectives of this order but would appreciate responses to the points to which I have referred.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for his reminder that we must not be complacent on this issue. As he says, the British shipping industry has an excellent safety record that is to be valued, but we must ensure that we continue to keep that record, as complacency would be dangerous. It is important to us to maintain that position in the global marketplace and our reputation for maritime excellence, as well as recognise our obligations to people who travel by sea.

I shall try to address the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, although I am not sure that I will satisfy him, given that the Minister in the other place did not. If there continue to be gaps, we will definitely follow up in writing but I will do my best to attempt to answer in an area which, as he is well aware, is certainly not one in which I would claim expertise. First, the noble Lord referred to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies and asked for a somewhat fuller answer, if I understood him correctly, on how we would enforce that protocol within that context if they opted to become signatories. He will know that the UK—as a signatory to international conventions on shipping-related matters—is bound to make sure that it gives effect to any changes under the conventions. It would therefore have a responsibility to ensure that any signatories among the overseas territories and Crown dependencies were followed through; failure to do so would constitute a breach of our international obligations under these conventions. I hope that adds significantly to the comments made by my honourable friend in the other place. We have obviously been encouraging these territories and Crown dependencies to sign up, so it is clearly good for travellers if they do so.

On revoking legislation, I believe I covered that in my opening speech. The Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Interim Provisions) Order 1980 seems to be almost unusual in that nobody thinks it has any practical effect any more. Therefore, removing it from the books strikes me as extremely appropriate. If I understood the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, he was saying that there was a sort of “one in, two out” relationship. I have no idea what the “one” is or what the pairing “two out” was, but I think that he would support the idea that anything that was completely redundant was best off the books, rather than providing a complication.

[Lord Rosser]

I certainly share that view—there is no point keeping something on the books that is completely redundant—but I was looking at what the Minister said in the Commons:

“I am pleased to say that the Department for Transport, as its contribution to the red tape challenge, met its commitments on one in, one out. It is now meeting its commitments on one in, two out as well”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 8.]

It was in light of the Minister’s comment in the House of Commons that I was asking what the two were that were being removed now that this one was coming in.

[Baroness Kramer]

I am sure that the department would be delighted to write to him, as I will, with our successes in removing unnecessary and problematic regulation. We would be delighted to follow up on that issue but, standing at the Dispatch Box today, I cannot tell him that I know the answer.

The noble Lord then asked a question—he will help me if I am not fully understanding this—as to whether this was a piece of legislation that had no practical impact, or a piece of legislation that had important impact and looked at two areas of discussion. This is a piece of legislation that would have been significantly important had not the EU already enacted its provisions. Looking at the SI today, it is fair to say that it does not have a big practical impact because that was achieved back in 2012, when the EU protocol, which incorporates a directive including these provisions, came into force. It is important that the levels of compensation have been raised for passengers who may be in the appalling situation of being injured—potentially even killed—or having damage to their luggage. That is entirely appropriate. The protocol is necessary because there must be some containment of liability or else insurers will not be willing to step up to the plate. In that case, we would see a dramatic diminution in passenger sea transport. Raising that limit has been important, and the fact that it is an international protocol also matters, certainly to British passengers who do not necessarily travel only on UK-flagged vessels. It has been an important piece of legislation.

[Lord Rosser]

We did say at the end that we welcomed the objectives of the order, so we are not in any argument about what the order is seeking to achieve. Our point was just about what appeared to be the rather different view of the Minister in the Commons—who considered the order to be short, technical and with no impact on UK shipping—and paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says that the,

“available evidence base continues to have a number of limitations…significant uncertainties surrounding the impacts of this measure…it has not been possible to monetise any of the costs and benefits in this IA”.

Clearly, as far as the author of this document is concerned, it is an issue of some significance. If it were not, why are those words in there?

[Baroness Kramer]

Frankly, in a sense, I am with the Minister, but if one is writing a technical document one does it against very technical standards. If you went out and described to a member of the public the increase from only 40,000 SDRs—I think that was the original figure—to the current 400,000, they would see that as a significant and important change. The technical language used by those who follow a very technical process of assessment may be somewhat different. As a very effective politician with a good history, the noble Lord will appreciate that issue. I do not have a problem with the difference. If his question was on whether we have consulted people to ensure that they consider the impact is appropriate, I should say that there was extensive consultation in 2012. Given that the practical effect of this SI is to extend the international scope rather than the EU scope, the noble Lord will understand that we did not need to repeat that consultation. He will know that this is a very widely supported measure.

The noble Lord asked about class A and class B domestic vessels. As he will know, domestic vessels are defined by the areas of the sea in which they operate. Class B ships are passenger ships engaged on domestic voyages where they are at no point more than 20 miles from the line of the coast. Ships falling within the description of class A are those on domestic voyages operating at greater distances from the coast. Under the EU protocol, I believe that class A will come under these same provisions in 2016 and class B in 2018, but through the mechanism of the EU.

[Lord Rosser]

Is there any intention to extend this to any other groups of vessel?

[Baroness Kramer]

The UK had already raised its limits to 300,000 SDRs for domestic sea travel. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to this. When the relevant statutory instruments are brought in to deal with those changes for 2016 and 2018, it may well be appropriate to look more broadly at the entire domestic environment. However, at this moment in time, awards are not pushing up anywhere near to the limits provided under the current arrangements and it seemed tidier to deal with the domestic situation within a similar timeframe.

I am trying to ensure that I do not go over time but an issue was raised about communication. As the noble Lord will remember, extensive consultation took place in 2012. Those conversations continue on a regular basis with the Chamber of Shipping and all the various interested parties, so there is no concern that appropriate bodies will not be aware of the relevant provisions.

[Lord Rosser]

Do the interested parties cover passengers and customers?

[Baroness Kramer]

I was trying to look that up because I remember that a fairly substantial answer was given on it in the other place. However, I will come back to the noble Lord on precisely how we are informing consumers of their rights because I have to confess that it has slipped my mind at the moment.

Questions were asked about the ferry industry and the early review of the 2020 regulations. I will obtain more detail on that issue for the noble Lord, if it is available. However, a review tends to be reasonably broad ranging—that is why it is a review. Presumably, it will cover the appropriateness of the regulations and their practicality in a modern environment. I hope that I have covered those issues adequately. If there are any outstanding issues, I will be glad to follow them up in writing. I commend the order to the Committee.