Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2013

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

First, I thank the Minister for her explanations of the order we are discussing. I have a number of points and queries.

The impact assessment refers to policy options under consideration, but it does not include the option, or the feasibility, of removing the cause of the trouble, which is the GB system of having new registration numbers every six months, and with it the quite dramatic peaks in car registrations in March and September compared to the rest of the year. The impact assessment dismisses this point, when it says on page 3 that:

“The peak registration periods themselves are nothing to do with any regulations”.

Frankly, I would have thought the peak registration system had everything to do with this order. Will the Minister tell us whether the peak registration system is in the interests of growth, since growth is obviously an important issue for the Department for Transport? This order supports the growth agenda, as the Explanatory Memorandum itself states, without answering the question as to whether the arrangement it is seeking to prop up is also in the interests of growth. Would the car industry, including car transporter firms, be better off with a much more even flow of cars being produced and sold each month than is the case at present?

Figure 4 on page 5 of the impact assessment indicates that, apart from some 10 weeks of the year around March and September, capacity in the haulage fleet comfortably exceeds—in some weeks far exceeds—demand for moving new and export cars. I hope the Minister will give us the facts and figures to show that the GB system of having new registration numbers every six months, and its cost consequences, are justified by the additional cars sold compared to what the position would be with a much more even number of car registrations and sales through the year. Frankly, if this cannot be shown, why are we introducing this order?

The impact assessment also dismisses the registration peaks issue on page 8, on the grounds that any changes to the system would be too complicated to implement. However, should we not be trying to do something about peak periods for the longer term, if that is what is causing problems for UK transporter firms, rather than getting in extra UK haulage capacity at peak times, possibly at greater cost? Can the Minister say whether other vehicle manufacturing countries—such as France, Germany and Italy—have the same problem as us over car transporter capacity because of their own systems of registration numbers?

The impact assessment refers to the effect of this order in allowing Ministers to relax selectively the application of EU cabotage rules in Great Britain. What is the maximum number of weeks in the year that we are allowed to do this? The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Association of European Vehicle Logistics and the Ford Motor Company both suggested that any relaxation period should start two weeks before the peak months; that is, it should be the last two weeks in February and August. The Government do not appear to have agreed to that suggestion, since the relaxation periods will begin on 22 February and 25 August respectively. The department agrees that it is sensible to allow the relaxation periods to commence before the start of the two peak months, but does not indicate in the Explanatory Memorandum why it would be inappropriate to agree to the last two weeks in February and August, which was what was being sought. Can the Minister say why not? I note that even the Government’s proposals will put additional heavy vehicles on our roads at a peak holiday time, around a bank holiday weekend at the end of August. Perhaps the Minister can comment on the wisdom, from a safety point of view, of doing that.

We are told that there were three negative responses. They were not exactly from lightweight sources. The traffic commissioners pointed out that foreign goods vehicles were generally more likely to be non-compliant than domestic vehicles. They said there was a risk to road safety and fair competition from the proposal. The commissioners referred to random fleet compliance surveys conducted by VOSA, which show that domestic hauliers attract a prohibition rate from mechanical defects of 10.4%, whereas the average for all foreign hauliers is more than double that, at 21.8%. The impact assessment goes on to say:

“Nevertheless, the Department is not convinced that this is likely to be a significant issue. Car transporters are highly specialised and costly pieces of equipment and we believe they are less likely to be non-compliant with routine roadworthiness requirements than the average HGV”.

That is really not a satisfactory response when rejecting the concerns of the traffic commissioners. The “we believe” school of policy-making is not on a very firm footing compared to policy-making based on evidence and facts. I ask the Minister to provide the non-compliance rates with routine roadworthiness requirements of, first, domestic car transporters and, secondly, foreign hauliers’ vehicles covered by this order, which would provide a factual basis for the department’s statement that it is not convinced that this is likely to be a significant issue.

Although the impact assessment appears a little imprecise on this point, I am assuming that the effect of the order is that more non-UK transporters will be in this country in the peak periods than are currently. That is because the impact assessment talks about the order removing bottlenecks and about exports no longer being delayed or factories put at risk because end-of-line compounds become choked. One of the negative responses came from a UK-based car transportation company which said that it would have to reduce the size of its fleet if transport operators from other member states were able to operate in Great Britain without restriction for two months of the year. Bearing in mind that outside these two months capacity exceeds demand, it seems likely that the months in question are ones when car transportation companies have more business—and more income coming in—than at any other time of the year. How can the department be so sure that non-UK hauliers being able to operate without restriction during those two peak months for business for UK car transporter firms, as a result of this government order, will not have an adverse impact on the UK firms?

The impact assessment states that the cost of non-UK hauliers would be greater. What is the difference in costs between hiring non-UK transporters and hiring their domestic equivalents, both now and under the revised temporary arrangements provided for in this order? How sure is the department that the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that non-UK transporters will be,

“used by the sector only when the domestic supply is exhausted”,

is correct? On page 8, the impact assessment states:

“DfT Legal could aim to draft the new Regulations in a way that would make it easier to capture further categories of vehicle at a later date by simple secondary legislation”.

Is that actually what the Government intend to do, and if so, why? What other sectors have reported problems with the present arrangements, and would such a step have a detrimental effect on UK hauliers? I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm what I believe she said—that there is no link-up between the thrust or implications of this order and the issue and consultation on the road user levy.

On its first page, the impact assessment states that the review date for the policy change will be April 2018. Why is four and a half years from now considered the appropriate date for a review? Subject to the Minister’s response, we are not particularly enthusiastic about this order, but we will not seek to oppose it.

[Baroness Kramer]

I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for a series of entirely pertinent questions. Let me try to take them roughly in the order in which he presented them. His primary question was about whether it is possible to level out or do away with these peaks of registration. As he will be aware, until 2000 there was just one registration date, which was each August, and the peak period was even more pronounced than it is today. Indeed, it was in response to pressure from the motor industry that the DVLA consulted on the registration periods. Subsequent to that consultation, it introduced a system of registrations each March and September. It spread the peaks over two periods. The general assessment of the industry is that the system has worked well and there has been no pressure from the industry to change the system in recent years.

I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it is to every advantage to have a system that is effective for the UK’s very robust car manufacturing and retail industry. Were there to be any review, it would probably be a BIS-driven review, because it would be to ensure that that is working effectively both for the manufacturing and retail industries and for customers. The department’s job is to minimise transport problems related to the system.

[Lord Rosser]

I take the noble Baroness’s point that that may have more to do with BIS than the Department for Transport. I asked whether in fact having the peak in car registrations in two months of the year was conducive to encouraging growth. I repeat one part of my question in this context which I think is a matter for the Department for Transport: do other car-producing countries in Europe—Germany, Italy, France—have the same problems as we do because of the registration number system?

[Baroness Kramer]

As the noble Lord will know, Ireland does that on a once a year basis, so it has something closer to our older form of a single peak. Otherwise, that is not the pattern in continental Europe, but then buying patterns are very different in various countries within the EU. I am sure that the noble Lord would not recommend that we change our system in order to follow continental buying patterns which may not fit buying patterns in the UK. I suspect that he would also agree that this has to be an industry-led consideration, because the goal is to ensure that it works well for the British manufacturing and retail industry and for customers.

The noble Lord talked about an adverse impact on the economy. He will appreciate that if we were to have a generally higher fleet at all times, there might be an associated economic cost. There are both winners and losers for the road haulage industry as well in changing the peak.

The noble Lord asked whether there is a maximum time for which the relaxations can apply. Exactly as he said, the relaxations are over two fixed periods, from 22 February to 31 March and from 25 August to 30 September each year. However, there is flexibility, because the normal EU cabotage rules permit non-UK car transporters to carry out up to three cabotage operations in the seven days prior to the relaxation period coming into force. In effect, it allows for up to six weeks of cabotage operations without having to leave the UK. I think that that responds to the issue raised by the industry when it asked for an extra week, because there is that normal process in the period prior to the actual start of the specific exemption. That provides the coverage that meets the requirements of the car manufacturers.

[Lord Rosser]

I think that I have understood the noble Baroness’s point, but is she saying that the earlier week before the provision comes into force is covered by the existing arrangement that you can do three trips within seven days, and that you can then switch straight to the relaxation—that that vehicle will not then have to go back to its own country, load up again and come back to the UK?

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Lord is exactly correct. That is why providing an additional week, as originally requested by the industry, was unnecessary because it is covered by that element. If we added two weeks on, as he asked, we would have yet another week added on, and I do not think that that would be either necessary to the industry or particularly desirable for the system as a whole.

The noble Lord asked about the impact assessment. There is no review date in the SI itself, but the department will be putting in place arrangements to review the impact of the regulatory changes, and I will ask that he is kept informed as that process goes ahead.

The noble Lord asked about language within the impact assessment that might suggest that the DfT is looking at extending the arrangement beyond car transporters. It is not. I agree that the language was somewhat confusing, so I asked questions about it myself. If the noble Lord looks at the SI, he will see that the way in which it is written means that if there were need to look at an exemption in another area, it would be quite easy to do a mirror SI, simply changing the description of the problem and the vehicle. The issue before us is the only one being addressed. Any further exemption would still be required to go through exactly the same parliamentary procedure as this exemption. There is no change in parliamentary procedure but a reduction in the time that legal counsel would have to sit down and work on the written language. That seems a sensible step when we are constantly trying to cut down costs within government. That is all that is implied.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for that explanation, but are there other sectors raising queries over the existing arrangements, or is this the only sector?

[Baroness Kramer]

This is the only sector.

On safety concerns raised by the Freight Transport Association, the noble Lord will be aware that minimum vehicle road-worthiness requirements exist across all EU member states, and the Commission is looking to harmonise standards in the future. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, or VOSA, carries out regular spot checks of foreign and UK vehicles to ensure that they are roadworthy and can take enforcement action, including issuing immediate or delaying prohibitions, and in the most serious cases can impound vehicles.

The issue of safety is partly addressed by that, but the noble Lord picked up on the point discussed in the impact statement; namely, that vehicles able to access the UK because of this exemption will be car transporters. As he knows and reaffirmed, those are highly specialised, very costly pieces of kit. I do not think that anyone has done the work for the UK domestic market or for non-UK resident hauliers to compare their accident rates versus other forms of haulage. VOSA will keep a sharp eye out and monitor car transporters more closely, and that applies to both domestic and overseas vehicles; but it is generally expected that these highly sophisticated pieces of kit will be less involved in collisions and raise many fewer safety issues than the haulage industry at large. VOSA is on to that and will keep an eye on it. There is no experience that suggests that we should have any particular alarm related to the exemption being provided for under this statutory instrument.

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, whether there is anything that I have missed in the questions that he raised, just to make sure that I cover them.

[Lord Rosser]

There are one or two, but I am not pushing the Minister to give a reply today. One argument advanced by one of the car transporter firms is that it might have to reduce the size of its fleet. I think that the Department for Transport’s answer to that is, “No, you won’t, because the costs of the non-UK hauliers will be greater”. What is the difference in cost for non-UK transporters in hiring domestic equipment under the present arrangements and under the proposed arrangements? Presumably, the argument will be that it may cost less than it does now to hire a non-UK transporter.

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is exceedingly helpful; I thank him for triggering my memory on both this and another question. Only one UK road haulier raised this issue. It is expensive, quite frankly, for the UK industry to have to carry the additional equipment—it is expensive equipment, as we said earlier—to meet peak. From an economic perspective, therefore, I think that most road hauliers regard it as an advantage to know that the peak can be met from elsewhere without a requirement that they carry equipment which would have to sit redundant for much of the rest of the year. As the noble Lord will see, the argument works both ways on this issue.

[Lord Rosser]

The argument is that if you had the flow of registrations more evenly across the year, the industry would not be faced with the problem of having enough vehicles for capacity in the peaks.

I am not from the industry, but as I understand it, the other argument that has been put forward is that those two peak months are probably the time when companies take in most of their income. What guarantee is there that at the busiest and most profitable—or at least, highest income—time, companies will not find non-UK hauliers over here taking away some of that business, on which their finances for the whole year may depend?

[Baroness Kramer]

Again, I confirm the point that the noble Lord made himself, which is that, because heavy and highly specialised equipment has to come from overseas—you cannot just throw something together to bring over to provide a service to a motor manufacturer—the costs make overseas hauliers more expensive.

[Lord Rosser]

The comparative cost is one of the questions I asked. I should have thought that it would have been in this information, because it is part of the DfT argument that the cost of bringing in vehicles from abroad will be higher. Presumably, under the new arrangements, the costs may well be less than they are now for the reasons that we have been discussing.

[Baroness Kramer]

Yes, under the system that we had in place before we had the new European legislation, but we can look at that. I will ask the department to write to the noble Lord with more detail. Again, much of the evidence has come from the industry itself, rather than merely being put together by the DfT, so that may give him some measure of comfort.

The noble Lord raised another question that I want to answer, which is: what would happen if we did not permit those vehicles, so that every three trips within the seven days they would have to go back to the continent and come back over? That is an exceedingly expensive strategy. That is the situation as it would be today without the exemption order. Unfortunately, the cost of that would get passed on to car purchasers within the UK and to UK manufacturing industry. So the noble Lord will see that there is an attraction in avoiding additional cost. He also raised the issue of peaks on the road in August. Sending all those transporters back on the ferry and then bringing them back again, gives a far worse traffic result than keeping them here and having them service that peak domestic need.

I hope that that covers the issues. I understand that the noble Lord has questions; I have said that we will write to him on those which he feels were not satisfactorily answered by my comments; but I am glad that he has given his support to the statutory instrument.

Transport: Bus Services

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for securing this debate. His comments seemed to have as much to do with Labour Party policy as government policy. I agreed rather more with the thrust of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and, of course, with those of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on her appointment as Transport Minister, a subject on which she has considerable knowledge and experience, not least through the prominent positions she has held over a number of years as a Liberal Democrat in London. If, by any chance, the Minister feels that she has had to wait a long time since becoming a Member of this House to speak in a debate from the government Dispatch Box, then, like the proverbial comment about the arrival of buses, she now finds that, after the wait, two debates have arrived together one behind the other. In warmly welcoming the Minister to transport debates, I take this opportunity to express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who, as a Whip, has spoken for the Government up to now on transport matters, and who in my experience has always been a very courteous and approachable person with a genuine sense of humour.

Some questions have already been raised in this brief debate about the Government’s policy and their approach to the bus industry, and we wait to see whether the Minister’s arrival is likely to mean any change in approach. I should like her to confirm that there will be no change in one area: that neither party in the coalition Government has any plans to withdraw the current concessionary bus passes for senior citizens. It would be helpful if she could confirm that that is the position.

We know that, outside London, local bus passenger numbers fell again last year, this time by 2.5%, with bus mileage outside London also falling again, this time by just under 1%. Mileage on services financially supported by local authorities, accounting now for 20% of the total, has fallen even further: by an estimated 8% over the latest year and 17% in the past two years. There is no need to guess which government policy has led to that state of affairs. If you make cuts of a quarter in local transport funding and a fifth in direct subsidies to support essential routes, it is bound to have an adverse impact, as has already been said in this debate.

The Campaign for Better Transport has said that a great many local authorities have looked or are looking to buses as an area in which to make cuts, with some councils planning to lose all their supported services. A fifth of such services have already gone. The position in London is different. Around half of all bus journeys in England are made in London, where the 2012-13 total was broadly unchanged from the previous year at approximately 2.3 billion, following years of growth. Likewise, vehicle mileage is up in London. In London, bus services are operated by private companies but regulated by Transport for London. In England outside London, services are operated on a purely commercial basis or with financial support from transport authorities.

The Department for Transport produces regular statistics on the bus industry. The most recent statistics, I think dated last month, appear to tell us that total costs in 2012-13 were at broadly the same level in real terms as in the previous year, and that operating costs for local bus services in England outside London have fallen by 2% since 2008-09. However, the next paragraph in the document, unless I have misread it, tells us that, despite this, the latest figures show that bus fares continued to increase at a rate greater than inflation in the year to March 2013. The heading for this very brief paragraph on bus fares is, “continued above-inflation increases”, which may of course be the explanation for why the paragraph on fares has been kept so brief by the Department for Transport.

What the official statistics also tell us is that women are more likely to use buses than men, that males and females aged between 17 and 20 made more bus journeys than any other age group among the categories within the DfT’s statistics in 2012, and that those in the lowest household income group make the most bus journeys, accounting for more than half of all bus journeys in Great Britain. It is therefore not clear on which groups who are not qualified for free concessionary travel the impact of—I use the Department for Transport’s own wording—“continued above-inflation increases” falls most heavily at a time when we continue to have the cost of living increasing at a faster rate than wages.

The Government also claim that they are trying to get young people into work or full-time higher education, while ignoring the fact that the Government have trebled university tuition fees, scrapped the education maintenance allowance and hammered the Future Jobs Fund. The Department for Transport statistics also tell us that the “continued above-inflation increases” in bus fares have a disproportionately greater impact on the very group—namely, the 17 to 20 year-olds who the Government say they want to get into education, employment or training, and who may well need to travel by bus to do so—than on any other age group. If bus fares are too costly, the opportunities for young people to take up opportunities in education, work or training are going to be reduced and restricted. That in itself imposes further costs on the nation and on taxpayers. The Government can hardly claim that bus deregulation outside London has been successful, except perhaps for the five major bus companies who control more than 70% of the UK bus market and do not appear to be feeling the pinch to the same extent as many of their passengers. I note, however, the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about the position of smaller operators and concessionary fares, and await with interest what the Minister has to say in response.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has given his views on Tyne and Wear. Tyne and Wear is pursuing quality bus contracts to get a better deal for passengers. Contrary to the tenor of the comments of the noble Lord, I believe that they should be encouraged, as should other local transport authorities who want to go down the same road: planning the local bus network, raising the level of services and tackling the issue of fares, including fares for young people.

Other local transport authorities may prefer partnerships with local bus companies, and there are examples of where this has been very successful. However, it should be for the local transport authorities, who are accountable, to decide which road to take. The Government should not appear to side with bus companies, who do not seem to like quality contracts, through funding arrangements which militate against local transport authorities that want to go down that path.

Government policy on buses has been a failure. One hopes that the reason the Minister has been brought in to replace her Liberal Democrat colleague in the department is to oversee a change in policy which leads to increasing passenger usage of buses outside London and to a better deal for bus passengers, who, while in the main not well off, are among those bearing the brunt of the cost-of-living increases.

Public Bodies (Abolition of BRB (Residuary) Limited) Order 2013

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I intend to speak very briefly about this order. I agree completely with the Minister in his tribute to the work of the board of BRBR and its staff over the 12 years or so of its existence. The Minister may remember that I spoke about the inclusion of BRBR in the Committee stage of the Public Bodies Bill on 14 December 2010. The Minister has referred to how the British Railways Board (Residuary) has gone about fulfilling its responsibilities since 2001, and I agree with him that its record has been excellent in many respects. I have been particularly impressed by how it has dealt with the 6,400 or so industrial injury and other health claims from former BR employees, to which the Minister referred in his speech. I hope that these will continue to be dealt with as expeditiously in future as they have been by BRBR until now.

BRBR has also done really well in discharging its railway heritage responsibilities, and I thank the Minister for his reference to this issue in his speech. I speak as a former chairman of the Railway Heritage Committee and the current chair of its successor body, the Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board, which as part of the Science Museum Group has taken on the RHC’s statutory powers of designation. This is partly thanks to the efforts of the Minister, who supported us in resisting its abolition under the Public Bodies Act 2011.

Very many significant railway artefacts have found their way to BRBR stores. The Minister referred to the drawings, which are literally priceless, but there are also some wonderful paintings from the railways’ art collection. Many of those are now on public display in museums and galleries all over the country as a result of, first, the statutory designation, and then the disposal procedures of the RHC and the co-operation of BRBR.

The other great contribution that BRBR has made in this area is in supporting the Railway Heritage Trust which, under the chairmanship of Sir William McAlpine, plays a huge part in restoring and preserving historic railway buildings. BRBR has been instrumental in securing third-party funding for the Railway Heritage Trust, particularly from Network Rail. In this context —I hope that the Minister will allow me to do this—I should like to put on record my own tribute to one of the unsung heroes of Britain’s railways, Peter Trewin, who is the legal and secretariat director of BRBR. He was also the secretary of the British Railways Board. He is a lifetime career railwayman, whom I knew first when he worked with Sir Peter Parker more than 30 years ago. He has played a crucial role in ensuring that the railway takes its heritage responsibilities seriously. I should like to thank him on the record for that work.

There is one further matter that I wish to raise with the Minister. He talked about burdensome estate— the structures that were once part of the operational railway—and that in the main these will be transferred to the Highways Agency. Can he give an assurance that this will not lead to roads being built on these remaining railway track beds? He will know from reading my recently published book that once the infrastructure has been built on, the opportunity to reopen railways on it is lost for ever. There are a number of heritage railways—I declare an interest as president of the HRA—that are looking at long-disused lines as future potential routes. We may also wish one day to restore some lines to the national network, as the demand for rail travel grows. That will not be possible if the infrastructure is converted into a road and we must not close down those options. I hope that the Minister will agree.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I add my appreciation to that expressed by the Minister and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for the work done by BRBR, and for the staff of that organisation. I thank the Minister for explaining the background to the order and the reasons for abolishing BRB (Residuary) Ltd, and transferring its functions to the Secretary of State for Transport and Network Rail (Assets) Ltd. The property rights and liabilities of BRBR will then be transferred to successor bodies in the transfer scheme, so I understand that it will be laid before Parliament after being made.

BRB (Residuary) Ltd is wholly owned by the British Railways Board. Perhaps the Minister can say what will happen to the BRB following the abolition of BRB (Residuary) Ltd, what functions and responsibilities it will continue to have, and for how long. The Explanatory Memorandum says that liability for handling claims in respect of industrial injuries, employment and environment-related claims, resulting from BRB activities as an operator of trains, ships and hotels, will transfer to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister give an undertaking that this will not result in a harder or a more long-drawn-out approach being adopted to such claims as a result of this transfer? How many claims are still in the pipeline and how many individuals do they cover?

I also support the request of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester that the assurance given in the Explanatory Memorandum that the abolition of BRB (Residuary) Ltd will not result in any change in the current process for releasing land designated for rail use, disposal, or for alternative non-transport use should be repeated by the Minister and thus placed on the record, including in the very specific terms that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was seeking.

The order deals with the abolition of one body. How many other bodies for which the Department for Transport has overall responsibility are still awaiting the outcome of a review of whether they should remain in existence or be abolished? A few weeks after we questioned whether taxpayers were getting value for money with four separate publicly funded motoring bodies, the Government announced that they were reducing the number of agencies from four to three. Is the department now looking at other issues concerning the number of bodies for which it is responsible, including whether we need even three separate government agencies delivering services to motorists, and whether we need a separate company to deliver HS2 when we already have Network Rail, which is responsible for rail infrastructure? In view of the fact that some rights and liabilities of BRB (Residuary) are being transferred to LCR, do the Government see a long-term future for London and Continental Railways Ltd and, if so, is that in its current role or a changed role?

We are certainly not opposed to the order and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to provide the answers and assurances that have been sought by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and me.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Rosser, for their comments. It is right to pay tribute to the work of the BRBR. I did not take the Public Bodies Bill through the House; my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach did. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, I was acting behind the scenes in respect of the RHC and I am proud of what we achieved.

Both noble Lords talked about former employees of the railway industry with long-latency illnesses such as mesothelioma and asbestosis. I assure noble Lords that they will be properly looked after. The staff, including some of the legal staff, will transfer. I do not know the numbers but I suspect that, by and large, they arise when someone is, for example, diagnosed with mesothelioma and the case is handled. Those employees have the advantage that their former employer was BR or a railway company and they are backed up by the Government. Sadly, a lot of other people are not properly covered, and that is why we are taking the Mesothelioma Bill through your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, paid tribute to Peter Trewin, and I join him in that respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the transfer of some structures to the Highways Agency and the burdensome estate. There is no intention to build on those structures. The abolition of BRBR will not result in any change to the current process for releasing land designated for rail use for disposal or for alternative transport use. The current process requires BRBR to seek the approval of the Department for Transport before land retained for transport use can be sold.

To put things into perspective, BRBR has only 33 miles of former track bed, the breakdown of which is as follows: 8.5 miles is retained for access to structures within the burdensome estate; 22.5 miles is retained for possible transport use; and 2 miles is in the course of sale across the number of sites. Of those, 28.5 miles will transfer to the Secretary of State, 1.5 miles will transfer to LCR and 3 miles, mostly relating to Glazebrook to Partington, will transfer to Network Rail.

I was also asked about BRB and what happens to the board when BRBR is abolished, given that the current directors of the board will cease to be directors once BRBR is abolished. It may be helpful if I say a few words about this. The British Railways Board is a statutory corporation set up originally under the Transport Act 1962. It will continue to exist after BRBR is abolished, as it is one of the signatories to the rail usage contract. That contract is expressed to be made under French law and cannot be novated without the agreement of the other signatories to the contract, Eurotunnel and SNCF.

Since 2001, the board has had only two members. Previously, there had to be a chairman and between nine and 15 members. Its chairman, Terence Jenner, and its remaining director, Peter Trewin, are also directors of BRBR and they will both cease to be its chairman and director when BRBR is abolished.

The Secretary of State has the power under Section 241(3) of the Transport Act 2000 to remove a member of the board from office or to vary his terms of appointment. Replacement members of the board, including a replacement chairman, will be appointed by the Secretary of State under Section 1 of the Transport Act 1962.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the future of LCR. The best way of dealing with that would be if I write to him.

Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this is another of those fairly formidable orders, certainly as far as volume is concerned. It is not always easy to understand fully, not what the point is, because I understand that, but what the argument is in favour of the order. Before I go any further, I will say that we are not opposing it, just in case the Minister gets the impression from some of my comments that we might be.

The purpose of the order, as the noble Earl said, is to make sure that only developments that can be considered to be nationally significant infrastructure projects have to be dealt with under the planning process set out in the Planning Act 2008. It does that by amending the circumstances in which projects are considered to be nationally significant, resulting in more projects proceeding instead under the planning regime set out in other legislation. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the amendments are being made with the intention of restricting the ambit of the Planning Act 2008. It states that the current provisions in respect of highway and railway developments mean,

“that developers have been faced with excessive burdens in order to deliver small, less complex or discrete but still important transport infrastructure improvements”.

I have read the Explanatory Memorandum, perhaps not as thoroughly as I might have done, but it appears rather stronger on statements about problems than on specific cases to help identify the problem that has currently arisen. The noble Earl’s comments about the problems of the present arrangements, which he just made, sounded quite dramatic. It would be helpful if he could provide more specific information about actual problems that have arisen to fill the gap that I believe is there so that that is on the record.

For example, how many schemes that have had to be dealt with under the Planning Act 2008 regime would not have had to be dealt with in that way if the terms of this order had been in force? What percentage of the total number of schemes dealt with under the Planning Act 2008 does that figure represent? I may not have read the Explanatory Memorandum as carefully as I should have done, and maybe the Minister will say to me that the information is in there, but at the moment I am not clear what the answer to that question is.

What additional costs have been incurred as a result of dealing with schemes under the Planning Act 2008 regime that it is now proposed are dealt with in future under the planning regime set out in the Highways Act 1980, the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as appropriate? Once again, I have no feel for what these additional costs are.

The Minister made some reference to this in his speech, but how long does it take to deal with schemes under the Planning Act 2008 regime, which it is now proposed should be dealt with in future under the Acts to which I referred a moment ago, and how long will it take if they are dealt with under those Acts? What kind of saving are we talking about as far as time is concerned?

As I say, I hope that the Minister will be able to provide at least some of the information that I am seeking in order to give a better feel for what is involved regarding costs and delays, and what percentage of cases that currently come under the Planning Act 2008 would no longer do so if we made change in the order so that they were dealt with under the one or more of the three other Acts referred to. We need to have on record the information that has led to these changes being proposed, and to be satisfied that the case really stands up and is rather stronger than simply the desires of a few interested parties for whom the less troublesome the planning process is, the better. However, I reiterate that we are not opposed to the order, despite the impression that I might have given the Minister in my comments.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the argument in favour is to allow projects to go forward in accordance with the appropriate planning process. The noble Lord quite rightly asks me about actual problems. During my discussions with officials, I was clear with them that there are problems, and they privately admitted to me that they have adopted less than ideal solutions in order to avoid the DCO process. This is because when the 2008 Act was going through Parliament, to be honest, it was not fully appreciated what the adverse effects of the legislation would be. If Parliament had realised that it would not have quite the desired effect, we would not have done it but would have done precisely what these amending orders do.

The best that I can do is to write to the noble Lord with some good, specific examples of schemes that have gone ahead, unless inspiration arrives. Part of the problem is that some schemes simply never see the light of day because the DCO regime is just too difficult.

The noble Lord asked about the time length under the Planning Act versus the Highways Act. It is about nine months for the Highways Act process, including consultation, and about 18 months for the DCO process. As the noble Lord will appreciate, that can cause pretty serious problems. I beg to move.

Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2013

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, on 5 June we announced an increase to the financial levels of fixed-penalty notices for most motoring and road transport offences, including making careless driving a fixed-penalty notice offence, following consultation last year. These changes are being made under the negative resolution procedure, and both the Fixed Penalty (Amendment) Order and the Fixed Penalty Offences Order were laid before Parliament on 28 June. Today is about a parallel scheme—fixed penalty deposits—which are for those alleged offenders without a satisfactory UK address. The draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order before us today will enable the levels of fixed-penalty deposits to be increased by the same amount as fixed penalties for motoring and other road transport offences, and will include careless driving as a fixed-penalty deposit.

Fixed-penalty notices are issued by police and Vehicle and Operator Services Agency—VOSA—officers. Regardless of whether an alleged offender has a valid UK address, they are issued with a fixed-penalty notice. Those alleged offenders without a satisfactory UK address are then required to pay a fixed-penalty deposit. The Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) Order 2009 prescribes the amount of financial penalty deposit that may be requested by an officer. To mirror the increases that are being made to most motoring and road transport fixed penalties, deposit levels will be increased as follows: £30 will rise to £50, £60 will rise to £100, £120 will rise to £200 and £200 will rise to £300.

If the nature of the offences or the manner in which they are committed are considered too severe or too numerous for the offer of a fixed penalty, the offender will be summonsed to appear before a court but will be required to pay a financial penalty deposit against any court-imposed fine. The order before us today increases the minimum court penalty deposit amount from £300 to £500. It also increases the maximum appropriate amount in respect of any single occasion on which more than one financial penalty deposit requirement has been imposed from £900 to £1,500. VOSA statistics show that in 2012-13 more than 10,500 deposit notices were issued, with a payment rate of almost 100%.

The intention of the policy behind the order was that parking offences would not be covered, as these are not road safety-related. The Committee will be aware that legislation is often complex. It has become apparent today that the order before us may capture some parking-related offences for those alleged offenders without a satisfactory UK address only, and therefore increase the deposits payable for parking offences. Departmental lawyers are currently rechecking the draft order to determine whether there is anything else that may be outside the policy’s scope.

The Committee will be aware that the graduated deposit scheme is aimed mainly at foreign HGVs, which were more difficult to deal with before the previous Administration introduced a deposit scheme. The vast majority of HGVs are maximum-weight articulated vehicles moving between large depots. Parking offences are not often a problem. In the main, offences relate to road-worthiness, driver hours and overloading. Therefore, it is unlikely that any serious adverse effects will arise from this problem. If necessary, we will lay an amending order to correct the issue.

I would also point out that, for foreign cars that make an alleged parking offence, normal procedure is to attach a fixed-penalty notice to the vehicle, irrespective of where it comes from. I will write to update the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and all noble Lords who speak in this debate before moving any approval Motion in the Chamber.

The changes to fixed penalties follow up key commitments in the Government’s Strategic Framework for Road Safety—referred to hereafter as the framework—which was published in May 2011. The framework sets out a package of measures that would continue to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. It also recognises the importance of targeted enforcement to tackle behaviour that represent a risk to road safety. The measures announced focus on making the enforcement process more efficient, ensuring that penalties are set at the right levels to avoid offences being perceived as trivial and inconsequential, and making educational training more widely available for low-level offending.

Today’s order supports the framework’s objectives by introducing careless or inconsiderate driving as a fixed-penalty deposit and increasing the amount an alleged road traffic offender must pay as a result. We know that careless drivers put lives at risk and are a major source of concern and irritation for law-abiding motorists. The police will now have the power to issue fixed-penalty notices for careless driving. This will allow them greater flexibility when dealing with less serious careless driving offences, such as driving too close or lane discipline—for example, staying in the wrong lane—as well as freeing them from resource-intensive court processes. Drivers will still be able to appeal any decision in court.

Fixed penalty levels have not increased since 2000. Therefore, their real value has fallen substantially, by about 25%. For example, if the £60 fixed-penalty notice level set in 2000 had increased in line with inflation, it would now be £80. Penalty levels are now lower than other penalty notice offences of a similar severity. For example, lower and higher-tier penalty notices for disorder offences, which were recently increased, are now £60 for leaving litter and £90 for being drunk and disorderly. Increasing fixed-penalty deposit levels will not only ensure broader consistency with other, similar penalty notices, it will also reflect the seriousness of these offences. In addition, setting the penalty at these levels will remove the need to review penalties in the longer term. I therefore commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and thinking behind the order we are considering. I understand from what he says that a hiccup may have been found that needs to be addressed, and I thank the Minister for pointing that out. I am not sure that I have entirely understood the order. No doubt my contribution will make it clear whether I have or not, and the Minister will put me right if I have incorrectly understood what it says and what it provides.

We know that the order provides for fixed-penalty deposits to be increased in line with the recent increase in fixed-penalty notices, to which the Minister referred. It also provides for a fixed-penalty deposit to be extended to less serious cases of careless and inconsiderate driving in the light of the decision that fixed-penalty notices can be issued for careless driving offences.

The Explanatory Memorandum states that the fixed-penalty deposit may be imposed by a police officer or a Vehicle and Operator Services Agency officer at the roadside on an alleged road traffic offender who does not have a satisfactory address in the UK. The purpose of this is to provide a guarantee of payment of a fixed-penalty notice or conditional offer in respect of an alleged offence.

The Minister has said that Vehicle and Operator Services Agency statistics show that more than 10,500 deposit notices were issued in 2012-13, with a payment rate of almost 100%. That suggests that if the individual who cannot give an acceptable address says that he or she cannot pay immediately, the vehicle is immediately impounded pending payment. However, perhaps the Minister could confirm that that is the case.

One would have assumed that most of the fixed-penalty deposits are, or will be, imposed by police officers rather than an officer of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. I say that in the context of the statement by the Minister in the Commons when this order was discussed there on 2 July, who said that the more than 10,500 deposit notices issued in 2012-13 were issued by VOSA officers with apparently none by police officers, which suggests that these notices related to commercial vehicles.

If that is the case, what happens in respect of private motorists who cannot pay—perhaps a private motorist stopped in the future in relation to a careless driving offence—when presumably it will be a police officer who will have stopped that motorist? If the motorist is unable to pay in circumstances where he or she cannot give a satisfactory address, does it mean that their vehicle will be impounded and they will be unable to drive it away, thus presumably maximising the prospects of 100% payment of the fixed-penalty deposit?

Who is in receipt of most fixed-penalty deposits? Presumably it is most likely to be foreign drivers or drivers with foreign addresses, but how many are issued to British nationals? In what circumstances, other than having no fixed abode, could a British national be deemed not to have given an acceptable address unless they are no longer resident in this country?

In the debate in the Commons, the Minister said that he would inform the Committee by letter of the absolute number of fines unpaid. I am not sure whether the Minister in the Commons was referring to fixed-penalty deposits, fixed-penalty notices or both but, whatever the case, does the noble Earl have those figures to give today and, if not, may I be advised of the answer in addition to the Commons Committee?

Finally, perhaps I may make a point about the extension of fixed penalties to careless driving cases. The Explanatory Memorandum shows the really quite dramatic fall that there has been in the number of careless driving proceedings in court over the past 10 years or so. I am not sure to what the decline can be attributed, although the Explanatory Memorandum suggests some possible explanations. However, I just hope that, with fixed penalties being introduced in relation to careless driving, a check will be kept to ensure that they are being used in only the least serious of such offences. There must be a temptation to use them in more serious cases in the light of the time savings involved and the paperwork that does not need to be completed and prepared, as it would have to be for a case going to court. I hope—indeed, I am sure—that the Minister will confirm that the necessary effective checks are in place. After all, the difference between careless driving causing a collision and injury and it not doing so can often be a matter of luck rather than the degree of carelessness in the driving. Certainly, from the Opposition, we have no objection to this order.

[Lord Bradshaw]

I have no objections to the order at all.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord asked whether he can be copied in on any correspondence to his colleague in the House of Commons. Whatever we write in terms of the details to the opposition spokesman in the House of Commons will of course be copied to the noble Lord.

[Lord Rosser]

I think the Minister said that the figure given for the almost 100% payment rate related to commercial vehicles, because it was VOSA people dealing with it. Presumably, from what he has said, fixed-penalty deposits already apply to private motorists, where they relate to a fixed-penalty offence and where they have not been able to give a satisfactory address. Has there also been nearly 100% payment in relation to private motorists where it is a police officer dealing with the matter, rather than a VOSA officer?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord’s analysis is correct. It is mainly foreign heavy goods vehicles but no doubt private vehicles will be dealt with. When we drive on the continent as private motorists, we try as hard as we can to comply with the rules in, say, Germany and German drivers would try to comply as hard as they can with our rules. I suspect that the police apply the rules pragmatically.

[Lord Rosser]

What I am getting at is that, as I understand it, at the moment, if somebody is stopped for a speeding offence they may be given a fixed-penalty notice. I had asked whether there are any circumstances in which a British national might be deemed to be giving an unsatisfactory address, other than their having no fixed abode. However, let us suppose that it is a foreign driver. In a situation where that foreign driver is unable to give a satisfactory address, presumably at the moment they are given the fixed-penalty deposit because of that. Is there, equally, a successful payment rate of or near to 100%, as there is in relation to commercial vehicles?

[Earl Attlee]

I will check with the Home Office to find out more details for the noble Lord but I suspect that the answer is yes. That is because if the police determine that a motorist does not have a satisfactory UK address—in other words, if they come from overseas or are from the UK but cannot give a decent address, which for various reasons some people cannot—there is a vulnerability that they may not pay. So they would come into scope and that vehicle will be immobilised until the graduated fixed-penalty deposit is paid. I understand why the noble Lord is concerned and if I can give him any details about the success rate of private vehicles, I will provide them.

Railways: High Speed 2

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for enabling us to have this debate today. It is probably not an unfair statement to make that most of the speeches have hardly been enthusiastic about HS2, and I shall return to that point shortly.

On the question of alternative routes, I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the extent to which the current route now proposed is fixed, particularly the extent to which any further changes would involve reopening or extending the consultation process and the impact that this might have on the timetable for the development and construction of the line. Perhaps the Minister could also say whether further decisions to put more of the line in a tunnel or cutting than is presently envisaged would mean further delay as a result.

I ask these questions in the context of a press advertisement this morning from the Department for Transport about public consultation events on the draft environmental statement for phase 1 of HS2. Is the basis of this consultation that the route, including the extent to which it is in tunnel or above ground, has been fixed, or could this consultation lead to changes in the route or the extent to which it is in a tunnel or a cutting?

On compensation terms, I await with interest the Minister’s response to the questions raised and points made in the debate today. Will the amount of money available for compensation be fixed, or are the Government saying that it can be increased if they decide that a case for doing so has been made? What action have they taken in the light of the recent judicial decision on compensation?

Reference has already been made to the recent National Audit Office report on High Speed 2. It is clear that the Government’s inability properly to progress major transport projects continues. Having already announced that they would be incapable of making a decision during the entire five years of this Parliament on airport capacity in the south-east, the Government then showed themselves less than capable of running the rail franchise bidding programme. The west coast main line franchising fiasco has resulted in nearly the whole of the rest of the programme being delayed or deferred and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being wasted.

The next display of a deficiency in competence over handling a project is now occurring over the high-speed rail link from London to the West Midlands, Manchester and Leeds. A less than complimentary National Audit Office report has highlighted financial and timetabling problems as well as the Government’s failure to articulate properly the powerful case for HS2.

As a result, the current hostility, which we have seen in part today, of a number of MPs and Peers, primarily Conservative, to the project is continuing. The National Audit Office has damningly said that the Government’s strategic reasons for developing High Speed 2 were not well presented in the business case. Its report also states that the timetable for introducing the hybrid Bill for HS2 phase 1 to Parliament this year has been overambitious and remains challenging. Witheringly for Transport Ministers, the NAO then drew attention to its earlier report on cancelling the intercity west coast franchise procurement, which had highlighted the mistakes that can be made in trying to meet an unrealistic timetable.

Further issues of concern to the NAO are the absence of a government mechanism to agree long-term, in-principle funding for the life of the HS2 programme, and serious doubts over the transport department’s capacity to undertake the HS2 programme to a challenging timetable, bearing in mind its other commitments and the impact of considerable organisational change, driven by the Government, within the department.

The NAO report does not address the environmental case for HS2 for reasons that are, frankly, not clear, but it then calls for an examination of premium fares for HS2 when there is no precedent for it, as the HS1 premium fares apply only to commuter services and no commuter services are planned for HS2.

Our support for HS2, which we first proposed and embarked upon when in government, remains undiminished. It is needed to address serious and mounting capacity problems on our existing rail network and, in particular, the west coast main line. The NAO report spells out far more effectively than this Government have ever done the increasing capacity problems for commuters at Euston in the peak and it goes on to say that a new line—that is, HS2,

“would release capacity for extra commuter services as most intercity services would transfer”.

As we have said before, in the light of the Government’s decision on the route, their dithering and delay on the question of airport capacity in the south-east and the need to progress HS2, we are no longer pressing for our preferred alternative route via Heathrow. We still have serious concerns about the adequacy of the link proposed in London between HS2 and the High Speed 1 route to the Channel Tunnel and Europe, the impact of the Government’s plans on Camden and recent proposals for a scaled-back Euston station. We will, however, be providing cross-party support to secure parliamentary approval for the HS2 project to become a reality while ensuring that it is fully integrated into the existing network, is affordable to use and is not undertaken at the expense of investment in the existing network.

However, HS2 will not progress if the Government again fail to get their act together on this further major transport project. The larger government party has lost control and influence over its Back-Benchers on Europe and gay marriage in both the Commons and the Lords. If a hat trick of Back-Bench rebellions is to be avoided, the Government have to make the case for HS2 with rather more vigour and determination than they have done up to now and also act on the critical NAO report on their failures to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I very nearly slipped up in what I said. I nearly said that we would be introducing a property bond, but I corrected myself and said that we would be consulting on a property bond, which is rather different.

My noble friend gave us an amusing analogy about the Palace of Westminster, where the Cross Benches are and so on. This claim reflects neither the current strategy provisions nor the discretionary proposals put forth by the Government. Property owners may be entitled to Part 1 compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973. This is paid if the property loses value due to the impact of physical factors arising from the use of new infrastructure, such as noise, dust and vibration. It is available for owner-occupiers of residential properties, small businesses and agriculture units. Owners can put in claims once the railway line has been open for a year. This allows the actual impact of the infrastructure to be understood.

I have completely run out of time. I will have to write on all the other issues, apart from the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of a below-ground station at Euston. I read the noble Lord’s proposal very carefully but I am afraid that it has been rejected. In order to avoid Underground lines and the proposed Crossrail 2 and Thameslink station at Kings Cross, the station would need to be very deep—50 metres or more. The significant additional cost and complexity of constructing such a station, and the significant safety issues that it would present in respect of evacuation, mean that this option is not viable. I have discussed this with the engineer, and will happily discuss it further with the noble Lord if that would help. I would also be very happy to have separate meetings with Members of the Committee on each individual issue, as I have only 12 minutes to respond today and it is very difficult for me to do justice to noble Lords’ points.

I reassure the Committee that the Government will continue to listen to concerns about the impact of HS2. The consultation on the draft environmental statement and route refinement will be an opportunity for people to respond with their views on what is needed. HS2 is about helping Britain to thrive and prosper.

[Lord Rosser]

Before the Minister sits down, in the light of what he said at the end about the consultation on the environmental statement, I am still not clear, and would therefore like him to confirm whether the outcome of that consultation could lead to the route that has been determined so far being changed, and whether it could lead to the extent to which a line is in a tunnel, in a cutting or on the surface also being changed—or is that all fixed now?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, at the end of the day, nothing is fixed until Parliament has determined what the route will be. The role of the Government is to propose to Parliament what the route should be, using the appropriate procedures, and then Parliament will agree what the route will be.

Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Friday 1st February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I do not intend to repeat what I said at Second Reading, or what I said on my earlier amendment, as we have had a good debate on the issue in Clause 2. My concern remains only with the inclusion in the clause of the phrase “deck officer” without a definition of the qualifications and experience of a deck officer and a recognition of the importance of being high up in the management tree of the ship.

My noble friend mentioned junior ratings. With his knowledge and experience, I am sure that he has a good point but I feel that nowadays, and in line with the EU regulations that we talked about earlier, it is important to have a definition of who can and cannot be given a PEC as a deck officer. It is very easy to say that a competent harbour authority will not give someone a PEC unless he is qualified, but it is like so many of these things—on a good day, when everything is going well, it will work out all right, but, sadly, we have all had experience of when things do not go quite right and sometimes a harbour authority is less competent than it might be. Where two ports are sited reasonably close together and are competing for trade, there must be a temptation for one of them to offer a PEC to somebody on a particular shipping line if that will attract the ship into that port and bring in probably much needed revenue. I would like to try to persuade the Minister to be as generous as he can in giving a tighter definition to the meaning of “deck officer” as applied in this Bill. If it can be related to the IMO deck officer that we discussed earlier, that would tie everything together and would probably also reduce the number of future court cases, which we all wish to avoid.

I could go on for a lot longer. I do not want to delay things too much and I still want to see this Bill pass. However, it would be very helpful if the Minister could give an assurance on that issue and then we can move on. My other concerns about the Bill are very small compared with that one.

[Lord Rosser]

I repeat what we said at Second Reading. We support the Bill and want it to succeed, not least because many of its provisions were contained in a draft Bill that we produced when we were in government. However, I am not sure that the Government are being as helpful as they might be as regards some of the detail. Clearly, the most contentious issue is that of the exemption certificate. My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the definition of “deck officer”.

I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a reply to a number of questions that I asked at Second Reading. I was given the letter—dated yesterday—only this morning. I have had a look at it although, obviously, not as long a look as I might have wished. However, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for the reply and for responding to the points that I made in our previous debate. The Minister has given a definition of “deck officer” in that letter and said that it enjoys the dictionary definition of,

“an officer in charge of the above-deck workings and manoeuvres at sea of a ship or boat”.

However, I do not think that that definition covers the issue of the minimum level of experience for,

“an officer in charge of the above-deck workings and manoeuvres at sea of a ship or boat”,

particularly as regards the pilotage operation. This comes back to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley on the standard of experience that is to be required. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister, when he responds, could give an assurance on that point.

I also asked about the role of the competent harbour authorities. The Minister said in his reply:

“It is a matter for Competent Harbour Authorities to decide who has the skill, experience and local knowledge sufficient to be capable of piloting the ship, and for shipping operators to develop and implement a Safety Management System to provide clarity on the roles and responsibilities of the bridge team when a Pilotage Exemption Certificate holder is acting as a pilot”.

Saying that it is a matter for the competent harbour authorities to decide who has the skill, experience and local knowledge does not address in particularly clear terms how much training it would take to obtain a pilotage exemption certificate in a place such as Liverpool.

Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, on her involvement in taking the Bill through your Lordships’ House. It addresses a range of specific issues and contains a number of the provisions of the 2008 draft Marine Navigation Bill of the then Labour Government, many of which were introduced into your Lordships’ House by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. For that reason, we indicated support for the Bill in the Commons and for its passage, following discussions, to your Lordships’ House.

The Bill contains provisions relating to: the power to remove harbour authorities’ pilotage functions; the granting of pilotage exemption certificates; the circumstances in which a harbour authority can suspend or revoke a pilotage exemption certificate; the offence by the master of a ship of not giving a pilotage notification; the giving of harbour directions to ships within, entering or leaving the harbour of a designated harbour authority; the power to make a closure order so that a harbour authority can and will stop maintaining its harbour; the extension of the geographic jurisdiction for the current six ports police forces in England; issues relating to the area in which each general lighthouse authority may operate and the carrying out of commercial activities by general lighthouse authorities; the arrangements for the marking of wrecks; and the drafting of regulations relating of standards to be met by seafarers.

There are two specific aspects of the Bill to which I shall refer. The first is Clause 5, which deals with the designation of harbour authorities that can give directions to ships, which effectively means craft of any size, relating to their movements, their mooring or unmooring, their equipment and their manning within that harbour authority area. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the Minister will know, concerns have been expressed that the power to give directions may not always be used in a proportionate or reasonable manner in relation to small craft in particular. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness and the Minister—if the Government are supporting the Bill—indicated what safeguards will be place to minimise the likelihood of this happening and, if it happens, what procedures will be in place to enable decisions by a harbour authority to be challenged, other than by pursuing the matter with the harbour authority that has made that decision.

My second point concerns the issue that has been mentioned on a number of occasions, the change in respect of pilot exemption certificates. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the Minister will be more than aware of the concerns raised by the UK Maritime Pilots’ Association, which clearly fears that the changes proposed have rather more to do with cutting costs than they do with anything else, and are concerned about the safety implications. The Bill amends the Pilotage Act 1987 so that any bona fide deck officer, which includes the master or first mate of a ship, may hold a pilotage exemption certificate, provided that the harbour authority is satisfied that they are capable of piloting one or more specified ships within its harbour. Currently, only the master or first mate of a ship can hold such a certificate.

Perhaps noble Baroness can define what is meant by the term “deck officer”, and say how junior an officer can be to be a deck officer if it is envisaged that, when carrying out their pilotage role, they could challenge the decision by the master of the ship. Again, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness and, indeed, the Minister, if the Government are supporting the Bill, can say: from what source pressure for this change is coming; what the difficulty is with the present arrangements that is so significant that it can be overcome only through the proposed wording in the Bill—not through any mean not involving legislation; over what period of time, how frequently or consistently, and in what circumstances, the difficulty has arisen; whether the change proposed in the Bill will be to the financial advantage of any groups of individuals, organisations or companies; and, likewise, whether the change set out in the Bill on pilotage exemption certificates will be to the financial disadvantage of any groups of individuals, organisations or companies. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, could also say what the assessment is, in view of the concerns that have been raised, of the impact that the proposed changes in granting pilotage exemption certificates will have on the current number of authorised maritime pilots. Is the assessment that it will lead to an increase, a decrease or no change as far as their numbers are concerned?

The proposed change in the Bill on pilotage exemption certificates could potentially result in a number of deck officers on a ship having a pilotage exemption certificate for a specific harbour. An increase in the number of deck officers on a ship with the certificate presumably means—but I may be corrected on this—that some or all of the deck officers are going to be piloting the ship within the harbour less frequently than would be the case under the current arrangements, where it is only the master or the first mate of a ship who holds the pilotage exemption certificate. Is there or will there be any requirement that the holder of a pilotage exemption certificate has to undertake the piloting of the specified ship within the harbour concerned a certain minimum number of times over a laid-down period? If that is not the case—and perhaps it is the case—will the harbour authority be able to satisfy itself that no deck officers with a pilotage exemption certificate for a specific ship, in respect of that harbour, will have lost the skill, experience and local knowledge required through lack of undertaking the pilotage responsibility?

Furthermore, will the harbour authority be able to put a limit on the number of bona fide deck officers who can hold a pilotage exemption certificate for their harbour in respect of a specific ship, or will it have to grant one unless it can show that at the time the certificate was sought, the individual did not have the skill, experience and local knowledge required? I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, or the Minister, will be able to respond to the points I have raised either today or within a short period of time—certainly before the next stage in the passage of this Bill through your Lordships’ House.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, when I became a Minister at the Home Office in 2011, metal theft was part of my portfolio of ministerial responsibilities. At the very first briefing I received on it, I was immediately seized of the fact that legislation and change needed to happen. Of course, having been a constituency MP, I was already aware of the difficulties and the serious crimes that were being committed, as Members have again outlined today.

Reference has been made to the Report stage of this Private Member’s Bill in the other place, taken forward by Richard Ottaway. Having studied it, Members will see that more than 70 amendments were tabled on one day. The reality is that, whatever our views on the way in which the other place conducts its business, had an accommodation and a promise not been given, we would not have received the Bill in this House at all.

My starting point is that this is a necessary Bill. I am enormously grateful for the support that it has received across the House, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. He knows that I am very grateful for his support in taking this Bill forward. However, what I am about to say may sound old-fashioned, but I believe that it is important in another place and in this Chamber: I believe that if a mover of a Bill—in this case, my honourable friend Richard Ottaway MP moved the Bill in another place—and a government Minister give their word that they will do something, the honourable thing to do is to honour that pledge and I am now moving this Bill in your Lordships’ House.

Too often, politics is brought into disrepute because politicians play fast and loose with their word. A gentleman’s handshake and the word of an honourable man or woman is no longer held in esteem in this country and, passionate as I am for this Bill and as grateful as I am to the noble Lord for his support, I intend to do the honourable thing today if he chooses to move the amendment to a vote. I will keep the word of a politician and the word that has been given by a Minister. Others may choose to do as they will, but I believe that that is what I should do and that is what my political career for the past 30 years has taught me is the right thing to do.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Attlee for moving the amendment. Of course, a three-year review is already built into the substance of the Bill anyway, so it is not as though this will be put on the statute and left to see how it gets on. There are checks and balances here. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, not to press this to a vote.

[Lord Rosser]

My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester has spoken powerfully on his objection to the amendment put forward by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government. It is not an amendment that has anything to do with the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the wording of the Bill; it has everything to do with the activities of a couple of Conservative Members in the other place who, apparently, were quite prepared to talk this Private Member’s Bill out, even though the Bill is supported by all political parties and widely supported by a range of organisations involved in the scrap metal trade or representing those who have been on the receiving end of metal thefts.

The reason these Members were able to wield such power, despite the insignificant minority view that they represent, was because the Government were not prepared to deal with this issue through a government Bill. They left it to be addressed in a Private Member’s Bill, which can be subject to the kind of action that we saw in the Commons. It led to the Minister in the Commons having to give an undertaking to put this clause into the Bill in your Lordships’ House in order to buy off the couple of Conservative MPs from talking the Bill out. That is the reality. Let us not beat about the bush on that score.

I hope that the Minister will do this House the courtesy of explaining why the Government did not address this vital issue through a government Bill, or alternatively take over the Private Member’s Bill themselves to prevent it being vulnerable to the kind of action seen in the Commons. It certainly cannot have been because no government time could be found, because it has been obvious this Session, in both the Commons and now in your Lordships’ House, that there is a shortage of business and not an excess.

I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester will be seeking a vote on this amendment, but he certainly has a very strong case, and the Minister will need to put up some strong arguments about why action by a couple of Conservative Members in the Commons should mean that this House should accept an amendment that the Government in their hearts do not believe is needed, except as a device to buy off two members of their own party who should never have been given the opportunity in the first place to take the action they did.

Clause 18, “Review of Act”, already contains a provision stating:

“Before the end of 5 years”—

you do not have to wait five years—

“the Secretary of State must—

(a) carry out a review of this Act, and

(b) publish a report of the conclusions of the review”.

In particular, the report must assess whether it is appropriate to retain or repeal the Act or any of its provisions in order to achieve the objectives. So what is the necessity for this sunset clause? To that extent, the issues are covered in the review. The review has to be carried out before the end of five years and the report has to assess whether it is appropriate to retain or repeal the Act.

[Baroness Browning]

I courteously remind the noble Lord that when his party was in office it, too, had mavericks on its Back Benches with or without anybody's agreement, who messed up Friday morning Private Members’ Bills. We should be careful of not reaping the whirlwind. If this House sets a precedent today that promises made in another place are not kept, that will affect not just this Bill but other rather important Private Members’ Bills that might come forward in the future.

[Lord Rosser]

This House has a right to assess the value or otherwise of the amendment before it. The reality is that the amendment will delay the Bill and put it at risk. It is for this House to decide, knowing that this Bill is widely supported by virtually everybody—whether it wants to delay it or put it at risk.

I will not ask the Minister to explain why the Government believe a sunset clause is needed in this Bill and not in virtually every other Bill that your Lordships’ House has discussed since the Government came into office, because I know that he cannot produce a credible reason other than that the Government had to bend to buy off a couple of members of its own party in the House of Commons.

We need to look at the possible consequences if the amendment is passed. For a start, it means that the Bill will have to go back to the Commons since it will have been amended in your Lordships’ House. If the amendment were not agreed or withdrawn, the Bill could complete all its stages in your Lordships’ House and be unchanged from how it left the Commons. It could then become law very quickly, which will not be the position if the amendment is accepted and the Bill has to go back to the Commons, presumably to continue to be dealt with under the Private Member’s Bill procedure. Accepting the amendment means further delaying the Bill; a Bill that virtually everyone apart from a couple of Conservative Members in the Commons believes is needed and needed fast.

[Lord Cormack]

I understand the noble Lord’s exasperation, but we have to accept the situation as it exists. It is unlikely that in the near future the procedure for Private Members’ Bills will alter. My noble friend Lady Browning put forward a real case for our reluctant acceptance of these amendments. She also made the point that we could reap the whirlwind. We could find many excellent Bills from your Lordships’ House sabotaged in the future. We have to bear in mind the realities of politics as they exist and the rules that govern Private Members’ Bills in the other place.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

I have listened carefully to the arguments and seldom do I cross swords with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, but surely, under the existing rules, all that the Government can agree is to put an amendment to this House, which this House must consider on its merits. It is not a matter of honour or honouring what has been done in the other place. We have been given an opportunity and personally, having heard all the evidence about the urgency of tackling this problem, I am grateful for being given the chance to consider an alternative proposal. But, as a Member of this House, it is my job to consider it and act on what I believe.

[Lord Rosser]

Clearly, it is a matter for this House to decide whether it wishes to consider the amendment on its merits. The amendment is not only not needed, it creates uncertainty in a situation where certainty in addressing scrap metal thefts is needed. The amendment would mean that nobody would know what the position would be in five years’ time. Nobody would know whether the changed practices and procedures provided for in the Bill will be permanent or whether we will be reverting back to the current arrangements in five years’ time.

What kind of message does it send to the law enforcement authorities? Are we to expect them to give some priority to enforcing the provisions of the Bill when we are also sending them a message through the sunset clause provided for in the amendment that we are so unsure about the need for the measures in the Bill that they will cease to be effective in five years’ time unless further legislation is passed?

What guarantees will there be that the Bill—

[Lord Cormack]

The noble Lord has already said that there is a three-year review built into the Bill as it is.

[Lord Rosser]

A three-year review does not mean that it automatically ceases after five years, which is the effect of the sunset clause. The two are different. The first is a review: the sunset clause means that the Bill ceases to exist unless further action is taken.

What guarantees will there be that the Bill, if the amendment is agreed, will not be subject to similar threats of being talked out that it has already experienced when it returns to the Commons once again as a Private Member’s Bill. It could be talked out either by the two Conservative Members already involved, who have after all already tasted blood, or through various amendments to the amendment that we are now considering by one or more other Members who might be less than impressed with what has already happened in the Commons and the way that the Government have dealt with it. They may feel that the Government should now be left with a choice of either having no Bill or bringing forward their own Bill.

The noble Earl does not know what will happen to the Bill if it has to go back to the Commons because it has been amended in your Lordships’ House. He cannot give any guarantees, since I assume that the Government are not at this stage thinking of taking the Bill over.

Agreeing to the amendment will create further delay and uncertainty for this Private Member’s Bill which, once again, will run the risk of being talked out in the Commons. The way to avoid further delay to the Bill becoming an Act and the way to avoid the uncertainty caused by the risk that it will be talked out if it has to return to the Commons, is to not agree to the amendment or, far better, for the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

Failure on the part of the noble Earl to do that will surely show that addressing internal party problems is of more concern to the Government than securing the passage of the Bill as quickly as possible in the interests of all those who have suffered the consequences of metal thefts, whether from our war memorials, churches or railways. I urge the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment and let us get this Bill to the statute book as quickly as possible and not delay unnecessarily. There is no dishonour in this House in doing that.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this important debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the need to use Private Members’ Bills. The noble Lord knows perfectly well how difficult it is to secure time for a government Bill. My noble friend Lady Browning’s comments reminded me of my Road Traffic (Enforcement Powers) Bill that I ran as a Private Member’s Bill in your Lordships’ House on behalf of the Labour Government and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I experienced similar problems trying to get the Bill through the House of Commons because of the sadly deceased Mr Eric Forth.

There is no benefit to be gained from inadequate reform of the scrap metal industry. The clause would allow for the system of regulation to be fully reviewed and assessed and for the government of the day to re-legislate in five years. The Government are not making these amendments because we do not have faith in the Bill delivering what is required. We believe that the Bill will be effective and that the review will bear testament to that.

How the House of Commons decides to handle a Bill is clearly a matter for that House. I agree that the House of Commons has problems in the way that it handles Private Members’ legislation—in a way that we do not. I do not accept that this Bill would be at an unacceptable risk if we sent it back to the other place amended. The Government are fulfilling their commitment, made in the House of Commons. We expect individual Members of the House of Commons to fulfil their commitments.

Civil Aviation Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, it will come as no surprise that I am sympathetic to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, albeit that I accept that it may not be in the right place today, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said. However, it chimes with what I have been trying to do over the past 18 months. As I said earlier to the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, we will have the pleasure, on the graveyard shift on Friday afternoon, of discussing my Private Member’s Bill, the Airports (Amendment) Bill, which is designed to deal with this issue, but in a different way.

Things in my region are fine right now—there are 10 or 11 flights a day to Heathrow—but the airline sector is very volatile. Already, Mr O’Leary of Ryanair is trying to buy out Aer Lingus, while Etihad has taken a small stake and is looking to increase it; they are not known for their interest in the regions. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, is that there is a key economic driver here. I have spent quite a lot of time over the years in politics and economic development. One thing is absolutely clear: if you cannot get businesspeople quickly to and from a region, the opportunities to develop economically are severely restricted. People will not go all round the countryside for hours, waiting to get flights. They need to come to a hub and get quickly to a region. Any other route is just a huge obstacle in their way. That is just common sense.

I have attempted to deal with this at two levels, both within the UK and at a European level, because there is a major European component to this. I know that I will have the opportunity to share this with the noble Earl on Friday, but a major piece of work has been undertaken in Europe; by sheer coincidence, it happens to be working in parallel on reviewing its whole slot activity and related matters. I am pleased that the European Parliament, because it accepts the Europe of the regions, understands and is sympathetic to a lot of these issues. We are gradually moving in a positive direction in Europe, to the extent that the Government will not ultimately be in the position of saying, “Well, we may be sympathetic to what you need, but we cannot do it because it is against European law, and we will have to get that law changed in parallel”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said, in quoting the letter from the Minister, the connectivity issue is at the core of regional development policy and has been for donkey’s years. That is why we have regional policy in the UK. For years, Europe has been putting large amounts of money into the regions, to improve their connectivity and their infrastructure. There is not much point in doing that if we cannot then fly from a region to a major hub; all the investment is wasted. At least in Scotland, and to some extent in the south-west, there are alternatives, albeit slow ones—that is, road or rail. In our part of the country, we do not have the luxury of that option. In practice, it is basically air or nothing. That is the dilemma that we are faced with. So while I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, is trying to do, I suspect that he will probably suffer a technical knockout this afternoon. Nevertheless, his heart and his aspirations are in the right place and I hope that the sentiments expressed in the Minister’s letter will be followed up positively.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this amendment is fairly wide-ranging in calling for the CAA to,

“have regard to the economic and social impact of services, provided by airport operators and users of airport facilities, on the UK as a whole”.

In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, referred in particular to services between London and Aberdeen. That is presumably the issue that has primarily prompted this amendment. We are aware of the concerns about the present arrangements for determining slots and charges at airports and about the operation of routes in such a way that cities such as Aberdeen may lose out, which would not be to the economic advantage of the UK either, bearing in mind the importance of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland in the global oil and gas market.

Reference has already been made to the letter from the Minister in which he expressed some sympathy with the concerns that have been raised. However, he went on to say that he did not think that this Bill was the appropriate vehicle to address them. Interestingly, he also said that he did not believe that air services between London and Aberdeen were under threat since it was a commercially attractive route for airlines. I will not go through the other points made in the Minister’s recent letter. However, as he said that he had some sympathy with the concerns raised, I am sure that he will want to put on the public record through his response to this debate what action the Government feel should be taken by others and by them to address the issue that has been drawn to the attention of your Lordships’ House through the amendment.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Stephen for tabling the amendment, which provides us with an opportunity to discuss the deeply important issue of regional connectivity. I certainly have sympathy for the underlying issues, and I hope that I will not have to deal a “technical knockout” to my noble friend. He mentioned rail journey times. I hope that he will join me, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and, I suspect, most of the opposition Front Bench in supporting HS2 when we come to debate it.

The amendment would impose wide and unclear obligations on the CAA, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, observed. It could be construed as requiring the CAA, when performing any of its regulatory functions, to take into account the economic and social impact not only of the services provided by UK airports but of the people who use them on the entire UK. However, the duties in Clause 1 of the Bill relate only to the CAA’s economic regulation functions. While the intention of the amendment is not clear, I am aware of my noble friend Lord Stephen’s particular concern over connectivity between Aberdeen and Heathrow. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, suggested that this was not the place for this matter. Fortunately, in your Lordships’ House we have great flexibility to discuss whatever we want. I always find the noble Lord’s contributions very illuminating and I am very happy to debate the issue.

The issue of regional connectivity was raised previously in Grand Committee with specific reference to connectivity between Belfast and Heathrow airports. My noble friend referred to the economic activity around Aberdeen, with the oil and gas industry. When I was on holiday in the area, I was definitely aware of that activity. On the issue of connectivity, I will take the opportunity to commend the work of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who has been extremely active and effective both in Westminster and Brussels on this issue. As the noble Lord observed, he will be promoting his Private Member’s Bill this Friday, and I am sure that he will succeed in breathing life into the Chamber on Friday afternoon.

Noble Lords will be aware that the primary objective of the Bill is to reform the framework for airport economic regulation. However, the amendment appears to apply to all the CAA’s functions, including safety and the enforcement of European consumer protection law. I am sure that that is not my noble friend’s exact intention. For many functions, such as safety, it is not appropriate for the CAA to have regard to economic and social impacts because the safety of an aircraft is of paramount importance. Furthermore, the CAA has well established duties set out in Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. These duties are disapplied for some of the CAA’s functions, such as airport economic regulation, where the CAA has alternative duties as set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. It is unclear how the duty contained in the amendment would interact with existing duties. Which set of duties should the CAA prioritise?

Despite these concerns, the duty in the amendment appears to be most relevant to the CAA’s airport economic regulation functions. However, I fear that the amendment would not have the desired effect of improving regional connectivity. Airport economic regulation concerns the regulation of the services provided at an airport by the airport operator, as well as the regulation of the landing fees that the airport operator charges to airlines. The noble Lord made a point about landing fees and I will write to him about that. Airport economic regulation is not concerned with the allocation and regulation of landing slots, which are governed by EU law, and an airport operator does not have control over where airlines fly to. Consequently, this Bill is not the right vehicle to address my noble friend’s concerns. In the UK, airlines operate in a commercial market environment and thus it is for an airline to determine what services it operates between Aberdeen and Heathrow, doing so based on its own assessment of the commercial viability of the route. These are not matters for economic regulation. Therefore, seeking to impose a duty like the one in this amendment will not influence which routes airlines decide to operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Minister said that he would be speaking for 15 minutes, but he has obviously gone rather faster than he thought since it says only 12 minutes on the clock. I can assure him that I shall be speaking for rather nearer 15 seconds than 15 minutes.

The Minister has spoken to a series of government amendments, the purpose of which he has explained. They are, in essence, tidying-up or technical amendments, clarifying amendments, or those which will include in the Bill wording that perhaps should have been included initially. There are also amendments which would implement, as the Minister said, the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which ensure that where the Secretary of State seeks to increase for inflation reasons the annual turnover threshold by which an airport becomes eligible for statutory undertaker status, the order will be subject to parliamentary control under the negative resolution procedure. In the case that the increase is for any other reason, the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. As the Minister has said, there is also a further government amendment which allows the Secretary of State to remove a non-executive member of the Civil Aviation Authority from office if he is satisfied that the member is a person in respect of whom a debt relief order has been made under Part 7 of the Insolvency Act 2000.

We have no objections to the amendments. Indeed, we welcome in particular the amendment which addresses the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Amendment 12 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

53: Clause 82, page 51, line 15, at end insert—
“(a) the individual employed in the civil service of the Crown, and(b) representatives of individuals employed as defined in paragraph (a).”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we considered this amendment and Amendment 54 in Committee. There is concern that there could be a significant or damaging loss of staff with experience relevant to security issues when aviation security regulation functions are transferred from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority. The amendments are designed to ensure, first, that the Secretary of State consults fully with all those directly affected before making a transfer scheme to the Civil Aviation Authority and, secondly, that the Secretary of State reviews the impact of such a transfer on the security functions of the Civil Aviation Authority before making such a scheme.

In the Minister's response in Committee, he confirmed that the real driver for the switch of aviation security functions from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority was financial. He said that,

“this is about efficiency and that the principle is that the user pays”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. GC 353.]

It has nothing to do with enhancing aviation security regulation since it is generally recognised that the current arrangements are highly successful and effective. The Government intend to change the current successful and effective arrangements for financial reasons and thus could be placing effective airport security regulation at risk. The onus is on the Government to provide convincing evidence that that will not be the case.

In Committee, the Minister said that his department had already begun to engage with staff and their trade union representatives on the proposed transfer of staff from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority. He went on to say that his department would engage with staff and their trade union representatives as the transfer arrangements were developed over the coming months until the planned transfer in spring 2014, if memory serves me right. If the Minister’s contention is once again going to be that no problems are anticipated over the retention of the necessary experienced staff due to the change, will he substantiate that stance by telling us whether any significant outstanding issues have appeared that still have to be resolved with the staff and their trade union representatives over the transfer arrangements? Will the Minister also tell us how many staff it is now expected will be either transferred or seconded from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority?

These are perfectly reasonable questions to raise in the light of the Minister's statement in Committee that the Government would not make the change if they thought they would lose a majority of experienced staff as a result and in the light of the concerns on this issue expressed by the Transport Select Committee in the other place. What hard evidence do the Government have that aviation security regulation functions will not be weakened by this transfer, or is it the case that when the Minister expresses such a view—namely; that they will not be weakened—that, frankly, is just a statement of hope?

The most important thing should not be the financial considerations that are clearly driving this change: the most important thing is the need to retain effective aviation security regulation arrangements. On that point, the Government have so far failed to prove their case. The amendments are designed to address the concerns that have been raised. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. It is vital that these issues are handled correctly and sensitively. The Department for Transport has already begun engaging with staff and their trade union representatives on the proposed transfer of staff from the DfT to the CAA. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the risk of the loss of valuable staff and I agree that it is essential that this is avoided to the maximum possible extent. The department’s human resources unit is formally engaging with the Public and Commercial Services trade union and the Prospect trade union on matters relating to the proposed transfer of posts and post holders to the CAA. There have been regular briefing events for staff and visits to the CAA building in central London, where staff can see their new office space and meet existing CAA staff. I should also remind your Lordships that many of the staff in those posts due to transfer to the CAA are mobile and routinely work at airports across the country.

Staff are kept informed with regular written and oral updates and we shall continue to engage with staff and their trade union representatives as we develop the transfer arrangements over the coming months and up until the planned transfer in spring 2014. So there is no shortage of time. The department appreciates that engagement with staff is vital, not least because we want to ensure that as many as possible transfer to the CAA, taking their skills and experience with them. We are working with staff to provide as much visibility and clarity as possible about the transfer. The transfer will follow the principles of TUPE and we aim to set out to staff the terms and conditions in April 2013—that is one year before the planned transfer.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the risk of deterioration in security performance. I am satisfied that there is no reason why this should occur. Indeed, it may be better—we do not know—but I am satisfied that there is no reason why there should be a deterioration.

The noble Lord asked whether there are any outstanding issues. There will always be HR issues with these changes. What is important is that these issues are handled sensitively and effectively. I am sure that that will be the case.

The Government believe that there is no need to amend the Bill to achieve something that is already happening. I hope that, with that comfort, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

The question I asked was not whether there were any outstanding issues still to be resolved but whether there were any “significant” outstanding issues to be resolved. I accept that there will always be some issues. I am not sure, therefore, that the Minister has answered my question as it was whether there are any significant outstanding issues.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I do not know whether there are any significant outstanding issues. It depends on what you call “significant”. An individual staff member who is possibly being disadvantaged would regard it as very significant but at the strategic level it might not be regarded as significant. I do not know the answer but one would expect that there are issues to be managed. As I said before, it is important that these matters are handled sensitively.

Perhaps I may give the noble Lord a little more information about the need to ensure high levels of security. The Government believe that the industry will benefit from the efficiency that could be gained through having aviation security and safety regulation in one place. The CAA has potentially valuable experience of safety management systems designed to manage risk as effectively as possible. This move will also mean that the user-pays principle is applied to aviation security as it is currently applied to aviation safety.

[Lord Rosser]

A significant outstanding issue would be one which might lead to a damaging loss of staff with experience of relevant security issues. That would be a significant issue. Another would be one which could result in a weakening of the current aviation security regulation arrangements. In the context of the Bill and what the Government are trying to achieve, I would define those as significant outstanding issues.

The Minister said that he is not aware of any significant outstanding issues that would jeopardise the two quite crucial aspects to which I have just referred. He said in relation to the possible weakening of aviation security regulation functions that they might be strengthened—but he did not know whether that would be the case—and that there was no reason why there should be a weakening as a result of the transfer. The Minister saying simply that he can see no reason why there should be such a weakening is not quite the same as saying that he is absolutely satisfied that there will not be.

The only other point I wish to make—I intend to withdraw the amendment—relates to the Minister’s accurate comment that as the move does not take place until the spring of 2014 there is “no shortage of time”. The difficulty with that—I am sure it will not happen—is that sometimes a feeling that there is no shortage of time to get things resolved can lead to a degree of complacency and then you suddenly find yourself in a situation where there is a shortage of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 53 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

56: Clause 83, page 51, line 27, at end insert—
“( ) the full cost of travel for users of air transport services, including all relevant surcharges such users would be expected to pay.”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority’s primary and overriding duty under this Bill is to carry out its functions in a manner that it considers will further the interests of users of air transport services, including in relation to the cost of current airport operation services.

This amendment adds an additional requirement on the Civil Aviation Authority to publish information and advice to assist users of air transport services to compare the full cost of travel for users of such services, including all relevant surcharges that they might be expected to pay. In Committee, we argued that it was surprising that the specific duty to make such information relating to cost available to users was not already in the Bill. Apparently it was left entirely to the discretion of the Civil Aviation Authority under the part of the Bill that says that the CAA should publish such information and advice as it considers appropriate.

We tabled this amendment because of concerns expressed about the extent of significant add-on charges, sometimes running into three figures and levied chiefly by budget airlines for such things as having a bag in the hold, changing the name on a ticket, having a bag even marginally over the weight limit, seat reservations and flight change fees. The purpose of this amendment is not to stop such charges but to ensure that they are transparent and readily known rather than, as appears to be the case at present, imposed with a degree of stealth on unsuspecting passengers, to whom it may well not have occurred that charges of such magnitude would be imposed for such relatively minor matters.

If the Civil Aviation Authority published the full, actual and potential costs of air travel, including all relevant surcharges, passengers would soon come to recognise that there was an independent source of information on charges that would enable them to make realistic judgments and comparisons on the full cost of travel, and potential full cost of travel, if surcharges were incurred. This would help reduce the likelihood of users getting caught out by a charge that they had not anticipated and of which they were unaware.

In his response in Committee the Minister referred to Clause 83, stating that the Bill already provided for the CAA to be able,

“to publish comparable information on air transport service pricing”,

and that the showing of,

“the full costs of travel and surcharges … is being addressed in other ways”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. GC374.]

However, I do not think that the wording in Clause 83 is as precise as the Minister implied. It refers to,

“such information … as it considers appropriate for the purpose of assisting users of air transport services to compare … air transport services provided to or from a civil airport … services and facilities provided elsewhere in the United Kingdom and used, or likely to be used, in connection with the use of air transport services provided to or from a civil airport”.

Where in that wording—or any other wording in the Bill—does it refer to the Civil Aviation Authority being required to publish information on pricing, which, if it was as comprehensive as it should be, would have to include the full costs of travel for users of air transport services, including all relevant surcharges such users would be expected to pay, as called for in the amendment? The short answer is, surely, that it does not.

I will of course wait for the Minister to respond to the House and indicate, if he is going to do so, which words in Clause 83 do lay that requirement on the Civil Aviation Authority, in clear and unambiguous terms. The Minister also said in Committee:

“On the full cost of travel, consumers are already protected throughout the EU by Article 23 of EU Regulation 1008/2008, which … requires airlines to display at all times their prices”,

with prices for so-called optional extras being,

“displayed at the start of the booking process”.

The Minister then went on to say that the CAA considered that some airlines are,

“now compliant with Article 23 of the regulation”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. GC374.]

However, that does not solve the problem. If the Minister considers that it does, why does he think that three Members of your Lordships’ House, from different parties, came in to support my amendment at Committee stage? I suggest they did so because they were aware that there continues to be a problem, as indeed is highlighted in surveys. My noble friend Lord Soley said in Committee:

“It is one thing to say that they”—

airlines—

“must publish information under Article 23”,

but it is another to say that they are completely up front with that information,

“so that a passenger knows”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. GC375.]

If we are to address this matter then there needs to be a clear requirement on the Civil Aviation Authority to publish this information on comparative fares and charges, including surcharges, in order to assist passengers and show them that, as an authority, the interests of users are crucial to its role, as provided for in Clause 1. If the CAA does not provide this comparative information, in a transparent, impartial and objective manner, nobody else will—whatever Article 23 of EU regulation 1008/2008 may say and however much the Government or the CAA may feel that the problem of unanticipated additional charges and surcharges has already been addressed. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I suspect that there are sanctions but I would prefer to write to the noble Countess and other noble Lords to give the full details. I believe that we will all find the answer to the noble Countess’s question to be very interesting.

Secondly, on payment surcharges, I share consumers’ concerns about the high level of payments surcharges applied by some companies and the fact that often people are not aware of the level of these charges until they are almost at the end of the booking process. This makes it difficult to compare prices and to shop around for a good deal. Noble Lords will recall the debate initiated a while ago by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, on this point—a very useful debate, I thought.

It is not right that a business should try to hide the true costs of its services by implying that its prices are made up of elements beyond its control when they are not. Your Lordships will be aware that consumers are already protected against misleading pricing under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The CAA has been able to enforce the principal obligations imposed by Article 23 through these regulations. In addition, the Government have publicly consulted on whether there should be early implementation of the payment surcharges provision of the new European consumer rights directive ahead of its deadline for introduction into the UK in 2014. This is important to aviation consumers because some businesses add a charge to the price of goods or services when the consumer chooses to pay by a particular method, for example by credit card or debit card. These additional charges are known as payment surcharges.

The BIS consultation set out the Government’s proposal for early implementation of a provision of the consumer rights directive. This will put in place legislation to ban businesses from imposing excessive payment surcharges on consumers. Businesses will remain able to add a charge only so far as it covers the actual costs of processing any particular form of payment. The consultation has sought views on the timing of the implementation of this legislation and how best to define the scope and application of the provision. Consultation on this early action closed on 15 October and BIS is now considering the next steps. The responses to the consultation will inform BIS guidance to businesses on how to set its fees in compliance with the directive.

I hope it is clear from what I have said that the intent of this amendment is already implicit in the primary duty of the CAA and that there are actions in hand and effective mechanisms already in place to secure the intended result. Given this, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his response and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for their contributions to the debate.

We are back in an argument that we seem to have so often. We put forward an amendment that highlights a problem and seeks to address it and the Minister says to look elsewhere in the Bill or to refer to European Union regulations where the problem has already been solved, and therefore the proposed wording need not be put in the Bill. It is never very clear why the Minister makes that objection. The wording that we are seeking is very precise in the sense that it covers fares, charges, surcharges and matters like that, whereas much of the Bill is addressed in more general terms and does not actually give a guarantee that the Civil Aviation Authority will pursue this particular issue.

I asked the Minister if he could tell me where in Clause 83 it referred to fares and charges, but he did not respond. He has given a lengthy reply, but he has not actually responded to that quite key point, bearing in mind his assertion, as I understand it, that Clause 83 covers this issue. I believe that it covers this issue only if the Civil Aviation Authority chooses to interpret this general wording as covering this issue. It does not in fact put a requirement on it to do so.

As to seeking to tie the hands of the Civil Aviation Authority, Clause 83 sets out a number of things where it could be argued it is tying the hands of the CAA, in the sense of telling the CAA that there are certain things it has to do. Is it really tying the hands of the CAA to tell it to provide information to the travelling public on something as important as fares, charges and surcharges? The Minister makes it sound like a minor issue.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is an important issue and therefore I expect that the CAA will cover it. Why would it not?

[Lord Rosser]

I will tell the Minister why it would not: because it has not been put explicitly in the Bill. This amendment does so, and the Minister is backing off from it. He keeps saying that it is covered in the Bill, but when I ask where it is in the Bill, once again I do not get an answer. I realise that we are banging our heads against a brick wall—it is quite clear that the Minister is not going to move. I think that this is a matter of real regret because the amendment is designed to assist the travelling public and to make sure that they can be aware of charges and not face the kind of scenario described to us by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

We have had the argument again from the Government, as we had in Committee, that people do not know about the CAA website. Frankly, if this kind of comparative information were published and publicised, the public would very soon get the message that the website is the place to go to find out what the charges are. If it is not being published, or if it is to some degree but no one really publicises that fact, then of course people will say that the CAA website is not where they would normally go to look for that kind of information.

I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response. I do not quite know why he wants to dig in in this way on an issue that even he accepts is a problem—a problem that this amendment is one way of addressing. As far as I am concerned, the Minister is not prepared to accept an amendment which is in the interests of the public who use air services. The Minister accepts that there is a problem but, in my view, is not prepared to address it by accepting this amendment. We express our strong regrets at the Minister’s stance, but nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

58: After Clause 83, insert the following new Clause—
“Access for disabled and reduced mobility air passengers
The CAA will produce an annual report on disabled and reduced mobility air transport passenger experiences of airport operation services and air transport services which must include evidence on the extent to which airport operations and air transport services are compliant with relevant legislation, regulations and codes of practice for the time being in force.”

[Lord Rosser]

We discussed this amendment at some length in Committee. I do not intend to go through all the points that were made then, which related to a possible conflict concerning the duties of the Civil Aviation Authority. As the Minister will know, this amendment seeks to ensure the production of,

“an annual report on disabled and reduced mobility air transport passenger experiences of airport operation services and air transport services”.

In Committee, the Minister said that one of the reasons he could not support the amendment—I do not wish to suggest that there was the only one—was that it was drafted in such a way as to put the obligation to produce an annual report jointly on the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority, and he had a significant doubt about linking together the regulator and the Secretary of State in that way. We hope that we have addressed that issue since we have removed the reference to the Secretary of State, leaving just the Civil Aviation Authority to produce the annual report.

In Committee, the Minister also said that,

“the CAA already publishes an annual report and corporate plan and makes a considerable amount of consumer information available on its website”—

a matter that we were discussing in the previous amendment. He went on to say:

“An extra annual report on a specific area of legislation, on top of those more wide-ranging reports, would be disproportionate”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. GC 384.]

I do not see that even with this amendment there necessarily needs to be a separate report from the existing annual report, which I think goes a little way towards addressing that particular concern raised by the Minister in Committee.

The reality is that the Civil Aviation Authority will have a more influential role under this Bill, which gives it additional responsibilities and lays on it a general duty to carry out its functions in a way that,

“will further the interests of users of air transport services”.

The CAA’s enhanced role in furthering those interests of users of air transport services justifies this amendment, which calls for an annual report on the extent to which,

“relevant legislation, regulations and codes”

are being complied with in the experience of disabled and reduced-mobility air transport passengers.

Our main concern is not that there has to be a separate document but that the issue is actually addressed. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment—I imagine that I am not being unrealistic in supposing that that will be the case—can he give assurances that in the annual report from the Civil Aviation Authority there will be a relevant section addressing the issue referred to in this amendment in order to ensure that the interests of disabled and reduced-mobility air passengers are properly furthered and protected by the Civil Aviation Authority, which should stand out as a beacon to be followed in this field? I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I hope that I can do a bit better to meet the needs of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on this amendment.

A similar amendment was debated in Grand Committee and during the Commons Committee stage of this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, observed, the key difference with this amendment is one of form rather than substance as the requirement to produce an annual report is placed only on the CAA, not jointly with the Secretary of State, as previously tabled.

I am afraid that I must oppose this amendment again and I will try to explain why. Of course, the Government agree that it is very important that airlines and airports are sensitive to the needs of disabled people and those of reduced mobility and that they fully comply with the European regulation that has been enacted to give access to air travel for people with disabilities.

There are, however, a number of reasons why the Government do not support this amendment. First, there are effective mechanisms already in place to secure the result intended. The CAA already publishes an annual report and corporate plan and makes a considerable amount of consumer information available on its website. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me to commit the CAA to including a section on this issue in its annual report. I have already made my Bill team manager very cross and I do not intend to risk doing it again. The noble Lord will understand that I would be making a serious mistake if I agreed to commit the CAA to include anything in its report that was not actually required by statute. An extra annual report on a specific area of legislation, on top of these more wide-ranging reports, seems disproportionate.

The CAA is already committed to the principles of Better Regulation and aims to be as transparent as possible in all its work, including in relation to compliance and enforcement with consumer protection legislation. It is also worth pointing out that disabled consumers benefit from the whole suite of EU consumer protection legislation for aviation, not just regulation 1107/2006 on specific rights for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, but regulation on cancellation and delays and on ticket price transparency. Therefore, it makes more sense for consumer issues to be considered in the round when these matters are reported on.

Secondly, such an obligation could result in an extra administrative and resource burden on the CAA, whose costs would have to be passed on to the industry. Thirdly, and most importantly, there is a new and better mechanism that I believe should be utilised instead. The CAA has set up a new consumer advisory panel to act as a critical friend to the regulator on behalf of all consumers as it moves forward in putting the consumer at the heart of its regulatory effort.

In April, the CAA announced that Keith Richards would chair the new consumer panel. Mr Richards has considerable experience of the disabled air passenger experience, having been chair of the aviation working group at DPTAC for many years, as well as being a former head of consumer affairs at ABTA. Since then, the CAA has completed the process of recruiting nine panel members to complete its complement, and the new body has had its first meeting. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is not going to suggest that Mr Richards is not a good appointment for this task. I am sure that he will do an excellent job.

Clearly, the CAA and the new panel will need time to develop their relationship, but it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the passenger experience of disabled people at airports and on planes would be of considerable interest to the panel. I suggest that it would be better to allow the panel to have the space to develop how it will go about its work and how best to support and inform passengers rather than to have an obligation imposed on the CAA in this way. In view of this, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

Before I do that, I am aware of the panel, not least because the Minister referred to it in Committee. As I recall, it is an advisory panel—it is not any the worse for being that but it does not have executive powers. Is the Minister able to say whether this panel will produce a report that will be in the public domain?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I would expect it to produce reports that would be published. If I am wrong on that, of course I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Rosser]

I would be grateful to know from the Minister what the position is on that. Clearly, if this panel were to produce reports that would be made public, one would be able to see that the panel was giving appropriate attention to issues affecting disabled and reduced-mobility air transport passengers. More importantly—since I am sure that it would seek to do that—one would be able to see what action the Civil Aviation Authority had taken in the light of any recommendations, complaints or problems the panel had drawn attention to. I would certainly be interested if the Minister could let me know if it will be producing reports that all of us will be able to see. In the light of that, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

61: Before Clause 100, insert the following new Clause—
“Accounts and audits
(1) Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (accounts and audit) is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (1), for paragraph (c) substitute—“(c) to send copies of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the November following the accounting year to which the statement relates;”(b) in subsection (2), for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) the National Audit Office shall examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts received under subsection (1) and shall lay copies of the statement of accounts and of its report thereon before each House of Parliament.”(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the National Audit Act 1983, (nationalised industries and other public authorities), leave out “Civil Aviation Authority”.”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this amendment provides for a new clause which would give the National Audit Office oversight of the Civil Aviation Authority’s accounts. Other regulatory bodies including economic regulators which are also industry funded, such as Ofgem, Ofwat and Ofcom, are subject to National Audit Office oversight. The Office of Rail Regulation is also subject to National Audit Office oversight and is likewise funded from within the industry.

As we know, the Civil Aviation Authority is funded from the aviation industry and also receives a limited amount of money from the taxpayer, but it is not subject to National Audit Office oversight. In its report, the House of Commons Transport Select Committee called on the Government to explain why the Civil Aviation Authority is apparently unique among industry regulators in being outside the remit of the National Audit Office. So, clearly, it did not think that a strong case had been made for that situation to continue.

In Committee, the Minister said:

“I remain unconvinced that there are compelling reasons to believe that NAO scrutiny of the CAA would deliver a different result from the current and new mechanisms by which the CAA's functions are already audited and scrutinised”.—[Official Report, 9/7/12; col. GC 464.]

He accepted that other industry-funded regulators come under the scrutiny of the National Audit Office. In our view, the onus lies on the Minister to show why the arrangements for the Civil Aviation Authority should be different from those for other regulators, rather than, as he put it in Committee, saying that we have to make the case. It is the Minister who has failed to make the case for not having NAO involvement, and for that reason we have brought this amendment back on Report. We hope that the Minister may have had a change of heart on this point. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I fully agree with your Lordships on the need for the CAA to be efficient in carrying out its functions, and I welcome the points made in the debate to provide for auditing of the CAA. However, I am still not able to support the amendment or its principle.

Noble Lords will recall that very similar amendments to Amendment 61 were tabled in the other place both in Committee and on Report and also in this place in Grand Committee. As I explained in Grand Committee, the Government would look to those proposing to reinstate the role of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to provide compelling reasons why NAO scrutiny of the CAA would deliver a different result from its current mechanisms. In the absence of such a justification, and having considered this issue further myself, I remain unconvinced that there are compelling reasons to believe that NAO scrutiny of the CAA would deliver a different and better result than the Government’s current and proposed mechanisms for the audit and scrutiny of the CAA.

The CAA is already under a duty to keep proper accounts and records in relation to the accounts and to make an annual report to the Secretary of State on the performance of its functions in that year. Copies of the accounts, the annual report and any report made by auditors are laid in each House of Parliament by the Secretary of State. Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 already provides that the Secretary of State will appoint the auditors. The Government have tabled an amendment to the Bill that will provide for better transparency of the CAA’s efficiency measures and for better accountability for those measures, and we will debate this shortly as Amendment 62.

That amendment will provide for increased transparency of the CAA’s action to improve its efficiency by, first, requiring that the CAA includes in its annual report a statement about efficiency in the performance of its functions; secondly, providing a specific power for the Secretary of State to give directions about matters that must be covered in that efficiency statement; thirdly, requiring that the auditors, appointed by the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, produce an assessment of the efficiency statement; and, fourthly, providing that the CAA’s annual report includes the auditors’ assessment of the CAA’s efficiency statement in respect of that accounting year. These are sufficient to give the CAA a strong incentive to secure value for money and to be as efficient as possible in performing its functions. I take it that the noble Lord is worried about the CAA’s efficiency and proper performance of its functions rather than that it properly accounts for expenditure.

Furthermore, it is not appropriate for the CAA to be audited by the NAO. First, NAO audits are usually of bodies whose income is largely from public sources, whereas only 4% of the CAA’s income comes from those sources. Secondly, one consequence of an NAO audit role would be that the CAA’s auditors would no longer be appointed following a competitive tendering process. This would remove efficiencies made possible by the tendering process that would precede any appointment of auditors for the CAA by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, the independent review of the CAA by Sir Joseph Pilling, published in 2008, considered the need for an NAO role and rejected it. The recommendation was subsequently accepted by Ministers under the previous Government, and I have yet to see convincing reasons why they were wrong.

Representatives of airlines have suggested to us that the benefit of an NAO role lies more in the value-for-money audits that the NAO would be able to carry out than in the audit of the CAA’s accounts. In that respect, I remind your Lordships that such NAO reviews typically occur on a cycle of five or so years. However, the efficiency statement and report that are now under consideration would be annual.

In conclusion, while the Comptroller and Auditor-General and his staff at the NAO do a highly effective job, I am not persuaded that it is necessary to bring the CAA within their remit. I therefore see no reasons at the current time why the NAO should audit the CAA. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn, and we should look forward to debating my Amendment 62.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his response. He is obviously very keen to get on to Amendment 62 on the efficiency aspect. I shall withdraw the amendment since the Minister has clearly not changed his view on this, but the reality is that the CAA appears to be largely unique among industry regulators in being outside the remit of the National Audit Office. I was not entirely clear about the significance of the Minister’s point about loss of competitive tendering, if I understood him correctly, since I do not know whether that is meant to suggest that the role of the National Audit Office in relation to other industry regulators is being reduced or eliminated—if that is the Government’s argument for not doing it here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 61 withdrawn.