Railways (Safety, Access, Management and Interoperability) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Grand Committee

Finally—the Minister referred to this in her speech—this SI uses the “made affirmative” procedure. The Minister concerned has attested that this procedure is necessary because this is an urgent piece of legislation, but it is no longer urgent. It was urgent when we were leaving on 31 October or possibly leaving without a deal, but it is no longer urgent until we get to the January deadline. Circumstances have changed. I am concerned, and want to put on record, that the Government have not rethought their approach to this SI and have continued to use this procedure even though the circumstances have changed.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for explaining the content and purpose of this draft statutory instrument, which relates to a no-deal scenario. I also thank the Minister and her officials for the meeting yesterday. I do not think that anything I am going to say will come entirely as a surprise to the Minister and I am afraid that I will repeat some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

I have a number of questions about the content of the Explanatory Memorandum, some of which will, no doubt, relate to issues about which I am still not entirely clear. First, how does an EU portable Part A safety certificate currently differ from a Part A safety certificate from the Office of Rail and Road, if at all, and how will they differ in the future? When introducing this SI, the Minister said that the two-year period to which this SI relates,

“provides an appropriate amount of time in which industry can prepare and align themselves with the Great British domestic certification regime”,

before going on to talk about it giving Great Britain “appropriate control”. In the light of that comment about giving time for the industry to prepare and align itself with the British domestic certification regime, what will the industry have to do in the two-year period to achieve that preparation and alignment with the British domestic certification regime? What actions will it have to take, because there has been talk of there being similarity between the two? It would be helpful if that comment could be clarified; it was also made by the Transport Minister in the Commons when the SI was debated there. I am not entirely clear about what the industry will have to do in that two-year period to prepare and to align itself with the domestic certification regime.

Will operators of services travelling from mainland Europe to the UK require both a UK Part A safety certificate and a Part A certificate issued in an EU member state? Clarification on that point would be helpful. Will a mainland Europe operator with a Part A certificate issued in an EU member state have to acquire a UK Part A safety certificate before bidding for a rail franchise, or will it have to acquire such a certificate only if it is successful in its franchise bid?

What is the position for a train operator in Northern Ireland? What Part A certificate will it require? Will it be a UK one or an EU member state one? Paragraph 4.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, headed “Extent and Territorial Application”, suggests that, in Northern Ireland, an operator will have an EU member state-issued Part A safety certificate because, as I understand it, it is not covered by the part of the SI that relates to the Part A safety certificates. Once again, some clarification of that issue would be extremely helpful.

In addition, if an operator in Northern Ireland has an EU member state-issued Part A safety certificate, who will issue it and who has issued the current Part A safety certificate? Who has issued the current one and who will issue a future one if the train operator in Northern Ireland had an EU member state Part A certificate rather than one issued by the Office of Rail and Road?

I want to make two points on the Explanatory Memorandum, one of which is exactly the one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about paragraph 2.5. I know that I am repeating what has already been said but, to recap, it states:

“The UK notified the Commission on 29 November 2018 that it intended to transpose the recast Railway Safety Directive by the later permitted transposition deadline of June 2020, though this will depend on the nature of Brexit on 31 October 2019”.


My question is slightly different from that posed by the noble Baroness and is simply to ask what the current position is on transposing the recast directive. Since the memorandum refers to it being dependent on the nature of Brexit, how will the nature of Brexit affect the transposition?

Finally, paragraph 2.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that, once the UK has left the EU:

“There will be an opportunity for the UK to shape its own railway to meet the needs of our passengers and freight shippers”.


What will we be able to do in the future to shape our own railway that the Government are in effect saying we cannot do at the moment under the present arrangements? I am not entirely clear on the answer to that question.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for this short debate on the SI before us. A number of issues have been raised and I look forward to trying to answer as many questions as possible. As ever, I will write if I miss out anything.

As I would expect from a leading Liberal Democrat, we heard the usual question: “What happens if we don’t leave the EU?” It is quite right for the noble Baroness to pose that question. That is obviously not government policy, so not a huge amount of work has gone into it—but the noble Baroness will know that, in the event that the UK does not leave the EU, all the work that we in government are doing at the moment on no-deal preparations, including these SIs, could be revoked. The SIs would simply fall away.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the recast of our safety directive. That point is very important and is in flow at the moment; we will certainly need to consider it at some point next year. The recast Directive (EU) 2016/798 on rail safety repeals and replaces the previous rail safety directive, and forms the basis of the regulations that we currently have in place. The key aims of the new directive are: to streamline the application process for rail vehicle authorisations and safety certificates through a single EU one-stop shop; to achieve consistency of regulatory approach between national safety authorities; to achieve much clearer alignment with the European Union Agency for Railways; and to progressively eliminate technical and operational differences between member states’ railways, including through the gradual elimination of national safety rules.

As noble Lords mentioned, the UK has applied for an extension to be in place until 16 June 2020, which has been agreed. Regarding the terms of our departure, if we are in an implementation period at that stage, the recast safety directive will be brought into our legislative framework. I suspect that, if we are still in our positions, we will be back in place to debate it at that time. If there is no deal, the Government of the day can look at the changes that have happened in Europe and decide whether to bring those changes into UK legislation. If the directive is implemented in whole or in part, a consultation with industry will take place, as with any new legislation. Officials have already done much of the work to ensure that the directive could be implemented if it is necessary and desirable.

Moving on to the ORR and its ability to charge a fee, the instrument makes fixes to EU tertiary legislation that allows the ORR to charge a fee. It was clear that the ORR wants to retain that fee-charging ability should it need to in future; essentially, we are retaining the status quo. However, the ORR has advised that it does not currently charge a fee in its role in determining applications for access to the rail network but that it wishes to retain the ability to charge a fee should it need to—which is the status quo. However, if a fee were to be charged in future, it would be subject to consultation with the industry.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also mentioned the “made affirmative” procedure and asked whether it was still appropriate for this instrument to be brought through your Lordships’ House under that procedure. I suspect that it is. The debate taking place today is happening prior to the date on which a no-deal exit would otherwise have happened. Therefore, the significant difference between the “made affirmative” procedure and the normal affirmative procedure is not substantial in this case. Had we done it the other way, we may well have had the debate on the same day—but it was absolutely clear to us that we needed to make sure, had this debate not been able to be scheduled, for example, that certainty would be available to the industry. That is why we used the “made affirmative” procedure. We could have gone back and withdrawn the SI, then tabled it again under the new procedure—but, in practical terms, I am not sure that it would have made any real difference.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, brought up the subject of safety certificates in future and asked whether there would be divergence. We may want to diverge in future; one of the benefits of Brexit is being able to take control of the sorts of regulatory systems that we might find beneficial. Safety has always been a priority for this Government and for Governments before us, and it may be that, in future, we diverge from the EU in certain areas with regard to the safety framework. We are definitely not going to lower our safety standards, but we might do things differently. But things may change and, in future, EU operators wishing to operate in the UK will have to get a safety certificate from the UK, and that will be under the new regime. Obviously, this would have to go through your Lordships’ House and there are many steps to be taken in that process.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have answered all the questions, unless the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is going to challenge me on that one.

[Lord Rosser]

Paragraph 2.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that,

“once the UK has left the EU we will have the flexibility to diverge from EU rail law where it is in the UK’s interest to do so, whilst maintaining our excellent safety record. There will be an opportunity for the UK to shape its own railway to meet the needs of our passengers and freight shippers”.

The inference is that we do not have that opportunity under the current arrangements. What are these opportunities to shape our own railway to meet the needs of our passengers and freight shippers that we do not have at the moment because of current arrangements?

Also, on the bit about alignment with the British domestic certification regime, I think that was something the noble Baroness the Minister said in her introduction, but it was certainly something the Minister of State said when this matter was being discussed in the House of Commons. Those were the words he used—so it is hardly the Explanatory Memorandum; it was actually what the Minister said when he referred to,

“an appropriate amount of time for the industry to prepare and align itself”,

with what he described as,

“the Great British domestic certification regime”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/10/19; col. 4.]

I get the impression from the Minister’s answer on behalf of the Government that maybe that was some slightly flowery wording and perhaps he got a bit carried away with himself.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I could not possibly comment on the words of my honourable friend in the other place, and I will go no further on that, but if I can shed any light, I will happily write to the noble Lord.

The words missing from the Explanatory Memorandum are “future needs”. Needs that might come to light will be in freight, for example. In my view, rail freight is an area where we should be looking to expand and improve the volume of goods that travel by rail. Improving gauge clearances or making all the other slight changes that one has to make to a railway to improve the ability of rail freight to, for example, get through tunnels, may have a knock-on impact on the safety certification. I do not know for sure, but these are the sorts of things that we will need to look at if we are to get more freight on to our railways. Therefore, we feel that, in future, divergence is a possibility. It is by no means a certainty. It would not happen without full consultation with the industry, and it would happen only if it is in the interests of the industry.

Electric Scooters

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I cannot guarantee for my noble friend that that issue will form part of this specific review because, as I said, it is about the future of mobility and urban strategy, and the micromobility types of transport that will come forward in future.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us the extent to which people are being fined or charged for using an e-scooter contrary to the law? I ask that as one gets the impression, rightly or wrongly, that that is rarely the case. Are the Government of the view that it is probably better for such action not to be taken against those using e-scooters, pending the outcome of the review?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Lord will know that enforcement is an operational matter for the police but I reassure him that over a one-week period in July, 100 people were stopped on the streets of London and were issued with fines; some of them had their e-scooters confiscated. I disagree with the noble Lord that, pending the regulatory review, we should not enforce. We do not know the outcome of the review; it is certainly our view at this time that we cannot guarantee that any changes to regulations will be made.

Air Services (Competition) (Amendment and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Once again, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the content of this SI, its purpose and objectives. As she said, it revokes and replaces an SI already passed by this House and it is necessary because the EU has revoked and replaced its own regulations on this issue. This SI makes the necessary changes to the new version of the EU regulations.

I, likewise, only have a couple of points to raise. The first relates to paragraph 7.8 in the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“In Regulation (EU) 2019/712, it is the Commission that both conducts the investigation and then, if appropriate, pursues redressive measures. The effect of the changes in this instrument is that the CAA will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State following its investigation, and the Secretary of State may then decide to adopt redressive measures. Such redressive measures will be adopted by regulations in a Statutory Instrument, subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament”.


Does the reference to the regulations being adopted in a statutory instrument refer to the form that the redressive measures can take that will be adopted by an SI, or should the redressive measures be imposed in a particular case that will be adopted by the statutory instrument referred to in paragraph 7.8?

Secondly and finally, the “Consultation outcome” paragraph, paragraph 10.1, is not terribly specific about whether the consultation resulted in support from those consulted for this SI or not. For the purpose of clarity, will the Minister say whether any objections or issues were raised about this SI by the aviation industry, the travel industry and consumer representatives, or were they all happy with its content as it stands?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank both noble Lords for their contribution to this short debate. I hope I will be able to answer all the questions that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about the CAA. I agree with her—at the moment the CAA can do no wrong in my eyes, quite frankly. It brought our people home without fuss or nonsense and mostly without error—all credit to it for its work on Operation Matterhorn. However, it has the expertise in this area. It is a substantial organisation with a lot of people with expertise in a range of areas and it understands the air services markets particularly well.

The noble Baroness was concerned about resourcing. That is always my concern with the CAA as well. Section 11 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 permits the CAA to make a scheme for determining charges. These charges would be met by those airlines that would be harmed by the anti-competitive practices. In essence, resources for the CAA would be met by those airlines that would be harmed by this action. Officials have worked very closely with the CAA in the development of this instrument and we believe it is content.

The Department for Transport might have a role in the investigatory stage. It will get involved only if it has the relevant expertise and, as importantly, only if its assistance is requested by the CAA. It is not as though the department will get in there and stick its nose in where it is not welcomed. We do not envisage a proactive role in the investigation. There will be a specific request. For example, sometimes the CAA can feel that it is more appropriate for the DfT to request information from third-party Governments. That sort of request comes better from the Government than from the CAA. But as I said, the department would very much be there in a supporting role.

I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the SIs that might be tabled in the unlikely event that the CAA recommends that redressive measures should be adopted. I point out to noble Lords that we do not expect that the provisions in this SI will be needed—it is very much a safety net just in case—but if that happens the Secretary of State will put forward regulations in the form of a draft statutory instrument. If there was one airline involved, it clearly would be a single airline instrument that would set out the redressive measures proposed. It would be up to Parliament to decide whether it was appropriate. If there are multiple airlines, they could be within the same SI or they might not be. It would really depend on the circumstances. As I said, it is slightly uncharted territory because these sorts of issues rarely get to the stage where one would use an SI such as this. Usually they would be sorted out in air services agreements much in advance of getting to this stage.

The noble Lord asked about the engagement we have had with industry stakeholders. I reassure him that we meet the aviation industry very frequently. Indeed, I was the Aviation Minister for a while and I had the honour of meeting the industry on many occasions. At each of the groups we had—for example, the round-table meetings we had on 18 February, 10 July and 16 September—we put forward where our future legislative programme might impact the industry to ensure it responds appropriately where it has concerns. I have to be frank: I have found the aviation industry to be extremely responsive. It is represented very well by various trade bodies. For that reason, we believe that there are no concerns, since none was raised with us.

I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these regulations.

Draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, the regulations on custom safety and security, which we have already discussed, have arisen from HMRC’s assessment that the haulage industry and ferry operators will be unable to meet the new requirements that will be imposed on imports and exports in the event of our leaving the EU by 31 October. The regulations will give them leave to submit the necessary safety and security declarations with a delay of up to 12 months.

Of course, these easements are on the side of the UK, and there can be no presumption that they would be met by similar easements on the side of the European Union—a point made persistently by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe—but perhaps it is now more interesting to consider the associated statutory instruments that concern the heavy goods vehicles that carry our exports and imports to and from the Channel ports. Some 90% of this traffic passes through the Port of Dover. The roads leading to the port would be subject to severe congestion in the event of a hard border with the European Union. The statutory instruments speak of the likelihood of utter chaos. They are a belated wake-up call, albeit that warnings arose months if not years ago. An indication of what is in store arose as long ago as 2015, when the French ports were beset by strikes. Then, there were tailbacks on Kentish roads of 12 miles or more. These circumstances were met by a set of powers and provisions given to the transport authorities that were described as Operation Stack. The controls were widely evaded, as we have heard, and huge costs were entailed.

To meet the eventuality of a hard border with the European Union, much more extreme powers are now envisaged. The new enhanced powers that supersede those of Operation Stack are known collectively as Operation Brock. Tailbacks much longer than those of 2015 will occur. I talk of a “hard border” because that is what we must envisage in Ireland in the event of the Brexit deal being proposed by the Government, notwithstanding their protestations to the contrary. In this case, logistical difficulties of the sort I have been describing will affect the Irish border. We must also contemplate extreme political difficulties of a sort familiar to those such as me, who witnessed them directly in the 1970s and 1980s, but which are being wilfully ignored by many of the party in power.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for setting out the reasons for and intended objectives of these two statutory instruments. As has been said, the department laid three instruments, each with an Explanatory Memorandum. The first is a draft affirmative instrument, which confers new powers on traffic officers that will enable them to identify cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles and control their movements in Kent. It also makes provisions relating to enforcement. The second order is also an affirmative instrument and allows for the use of such vehicles to be restricted to the motorway network and other approved routes by prohibiting access to local roads in Kent. The third order follows the negative procedure and allows for the use of such vehicles on the M20 motorway in Kent to be restricted, and makes other provision to facilitate more effective enforcement.

As the Minister has said, these three instruments form a package that allows for the movement of cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles in Kent to be regulated during periods of severe disruption to travel via the Channel Tunnel at Folkestone and the Port of Dover. As has been said, the DfT has indicated that it,

“has worked closely with the Kent Resilience Forum on developing traffic management plans, known as Operation Brock, to be used as a contingency in the event of severe disruption to travel via the Channel Tunnel at Folkestone and the Port of Dover. These instruments support Operation Brock”,

which has been designed to ensure that the M20 motorway in Kent will be kept open and traffic will continue to flow in both directions. Operation Brock is intended as a replacement for Operation Stack during periods of severe and protracted disruption. Operation Stack did not prove an unqualified success, hence the new Operation Brock.

As I have said, the first draft order enables the movement of cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles in Kent to be controlled during periods of severe disruption by conferring new powers on traffic officers. These new powers will be used to tackle non-compliance with the scheme, which would cause or contribute to severe traffic congestion. The new powers are conferred under Section 8 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. Apparently, the draft No. 1 order is the first use of the Section 8 power. As has been indicated, these powers will enable traffic officers to detect and direct vehicles that are not compliant with the traffic restrictions imposed by the second and third orders.

The Explanatory Memorandum notes that, in particular, traffic officers will be able to require the production of documents to establish a vehicle’s destination and to demonstrate readiness to export goods. Powers to direct the driver of a heavy goods vehicle in Kent to proceed to a specified motorway in Kent, or to direct such a driver not to proceed to the Channel Tunnel or Port of Dover except via a specified route or road, are also provided to traffic officers. This order also creates an offence of failing to comply with a traffic officer exercising such powers. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has already said that in many ways, it is difficult to understand the full potential consequences of these orders on the movement of goods and traffic in Kent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am sorry if I phrased that incorrectly. I know that the noble Baroness welcomed the local consultation. The point I was trying to make is that this was more than the Government just going to Kent and saying, “What do you think of this?”. This was more about Kent saying, “Actually, given what happened with Operation Stack, we’d really like these powers, and if the Government could sort it for us, that would be great”. So that is what the Government are trying to do today. As has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, these powers are available in the event that there is congestion at the border caused by a no-deal Brexit, but they can also be used for bad weather and/or industrial action.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, noted the use of Operation Stack in 2015. I, too, was unfortunate enough to drive through Kent at the time, and it was a nightmare. It caused great trouble, so we are well aware of the issues that can happen, and they do not have to be Brexit-related. Having said that, however, these powers are limited to 31 December 2020. That is right, in that we would not want to extend powers then leave them hanging for a long period of time if they are not needed in future. Certainly, should we or a Government in the future decide that they are useful and benefit the people of Kent, I would expect similar legislation to be passed again in future, once these powers have fallen away on 31 December 2020.

As I have mentioned, these powers are very much for the benefit of businesses, residents and people who—like me—travel through Kent. They are being made under a variety of different Acts, which is why—I am sure noble Lords understand—one is draft affirmative, one is made affirmative and one is negative. They stem from different parts of our legislative scope and the different things we have available to us. They are a series of instruments and will not come into effect without Parliament’s approval, so the negative does not come into effect on its own.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the SDOs and referred to three different sites. The SDOs are in place for Manston, which has been in place since January 2019; Ebbsfleet, which has been in place since September 2019 and will be used as an HMRC transit site; and Ashford, which has been in place since September 2019 and is an HMRC transit site and turnback site so that HGVs that arrival at Eurotunnel and are found to be not compliant will have somewhere they can go that will have facilities for them to try to get themselves compliant, so that they can be border-ready and can head across to the border.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned empty lorries. These will be treated the same as other lorries. I will be honest with noble Lords: we looked at whether we could treat empty lorries separately, but there are various issues around, for example, packaging. Some packaging, although it is empty, must have the relevant certification with it because obviously there is no way of making sure that that packaging is empty. Therefore things such as beer kegs need some customs documentation. An empty lorry that does not carry beer kegs will not need it.

This brings us on to the general discussion about the documentation needed, who is checking it and how qualified these people are. There are levels—layers—to this entire system. The traffic officers, whether they be temporary or permanent, will look for the existence of certain documents. This is not a shadow French or EU customs operation; they are looking for the existence of the documents. If those documents exist, they assume that that HGV is compliant; it will get a permit and continue. They do not have to be experts. However, I take the point: training is under way and is being done in order that the traffic officers, whether permanent or temporary, recognise the documents that we will require when they get to the border.

The classes of documents we are looking for are fairly straightforward: for travel documents, it is a passport or ID card, and for customs, it is the movement reference number from two different types of document. Only in the case of phytosanitary certificates, export health certificates or export licences for chemicals and drugs will we look for additional documents. The training is under way and will continue. To do the checks, the traffic officers will have screens. It is done online. The software is translated into 11 different languages so that if the traffic officer speaks to somebody who does not speak English but perhaps speaks one of the languages in front of them, we can make sure that the person has the documents and can be on their way with a permit as quickly as possible. To help noble Lords’ understanding, the traffic officers are doing the checks; they are also responsible for traffic movements. We are looking to the police for enforcement, not checks, and to the DVSA, which has similar powers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, went on to talk about the contraflow. We are very seized of the issue that the contraflow brings to the M20. We completely understand that it is not a permanent solution. I can give the noble Baroness some hope. I have seen some proposals for what the permanent solution may be. We are getting to the bottom of them, and I very much hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to share with noble Lords what the permanent solution will be. I do not believe it will be as terrifying—as the noble Baroness mentioned—as driving down that stretch of the M20 can be at this moment in time.

Turning to the local lorries, I suppose there are two issues here. First, there are lorries that need to do a delivery or pick-up within Kent before they proceed to the border. I would expect them to have all the appropriate documents because they are heading to the border. In all this there is an overarching assessment of reasonableness. They should have the right sort of documents. We spoke to the Kent Resilience Forum about the other local lorries, and the police are well aware of the rat-runs that HGVs trying to get to the border might use. They know where people are going. They will not be covering every single road in Kent. Most of the local traders in Kent will be able to get from A to B with no trouble. Many noble Lords have recognised that a lot of these hauliers—well over 80% —will be operating businesses based out of the EU. I suggest to noble Lords that the number plate might be a bit of a giveaway anyway, but of course it is clearly not 100% fool-proof.

I turn to the impact assessment or lack thereof. A de minimis assessment was undertaken with these SIs about the actual or potential imposition of this contingency plan. We followed the approach agreed with Defra advice. The more general issue of potential disruption in Kent in the event of no deal has been assessed by the Kent Resilience Forum with input from the border delivery group and DfT.

I turn to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I have what I hope are some helpful numbers that will put his mind at rest about the additional staff. If operational, it is true that this will need a significant number, but remember that these powers are only needed if Operation Brock is in. We are probably looking at 125 temporary traffic officers. They will do the traffic checks on the M20 and will be on three-month contracts extendable by three months. We will be looking at about 130 DVSA enforcement staff, 60 of whom will come from outside Kent. There will 120 Highways England traffic officers. There will be 350 police officers, 160 of whom will come from outside Kent, given the very well understood structures that exist for when police forces need to help one another. Any deployment from outside the Kent area will be time limited. Appropriate arrangements will be put in place to ensure that roles are covered as people move to different responsibilities.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister made reference to 125 traffic officers and three-month contracts that could be extended. Does that indicate that problems may arise immediately after 31 October that the Government think will diminish—not disappear—sufficiently over the three-month period so as to not need 125 traffic officers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I appreciate that the Minister has not had a chance to get around to answering this point. I am sure that there are a number of areas that unions representing drivers will be interested in. I am sure that they would be interested if it turned out that the working time directive went for a fourpenny one—to use that expression—immediately the severe disruption powers were activated. If the Government’s answer is that that will be the situation, have the trade unions been advised of that?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

It is not the Government’s intention to suspend the regulations on drivers’ hours or any other regulations around working time. We would do it only if we needed to. The noble Lord asked whether they had been suspended before; I am not aware that they have been. I think the issue arises where the rest times for hauliers are often required to be spent outside of the cab et cetera. When they are in a long queue of trucks that is not moving, they will have the opportunity to get out of their cab—although I understand that it might be winter and they may not want to.

[Lord Rosser]

The context in which I asked whether the powers had been used before—bearing in mind that there is now a reference to severe weather or industrial actions—was about whether they had been used in the context of severe weather or industrial action. If they have not, the power in these SIs is not related purely to Brexit; it is, in fact, a new provision being brought in. In other words, you can use these powers if you want to, in relation to severe weather or industrial action. I do not think that the Minister understands my point. The Government have said that these powers to suspend the working time directive have not been used before. But we have a reference here to the possibility of them being suspended in relation to severe weather or industrial action—which is not something necessarily related to Brexit.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am doing my best, but I might have to go back through Hansard to try to understand the noble Lord’s exact point. To my mind there are two separate issues here. The first is whether these powers—the operation block enforcement powers—can be used in circumstances of industrial action or severe weather: yes, they can. Secondly, and entirely separately, there is the issue that we might get to whereby drivers’ hours or working time directive regulations might need to be suspended. We do not want that to happen, obviously. I thought that the noble Lord had asked whether that had happened before; I am not aware that is has and will have to write to the noble Lord on that. In doing so, I will ask whether those circumstances arose.

I believe that I have covered as much as I am able to today. I will certainly go back through the notes—

Railways: Trans-Pennine Freight

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

We are deeply aware that there are a number of freight routes for rail and are doing what we can to improve their usage. For example, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is aware of the W7A gauge clearance project, which is going on at the moment. We are building a business case with industry to develop a W7A gauge clearance which would run along the trans-Pennine rail route via Huddersfield and Stalybridge. I hope that meets with his approval. If there is a positive business case, we will proceed with it forthwith; it could be in place by late 2020.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, capacity for rail freight is a key priority. Will the Government show that through an undertaking that that they will give the same priority, with the same timescales, to increasing capacity for rail freight across the Pennines as they say that they intend to do for rail passenger traffic across the Pennines?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord for his question but, of course, it is not either/or; the two must be developed together. We often end up looking at a single mode for freight; what we must do is look at all the options, which will include road and, obviously, rail. But he brings up an important point. We will look very closely at cross-modal freight across the country in a strategy for the future starting this autumn.

Cableway Installations (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I was tempted to ask whether this included zipwires, to make sure that people going down them got to the bottom. More importantly, I know from my own family that there are more high-wire facilities in parks and adventure parks. Children go on them above the trees; they are great for exploration and daring. Does this include that type of facility? I should probably have listened to the Minister even more carefully. Who inspects these facilities now? Is it local authorities? How is it done? How are we sure that the regulations, whatever they are, are not just enforced but checked? I suspect that these facilities will increase in number over the years.

I am quite concerned that because pre-1896 cableways are termed cultural, we therefore do not particularly worry about health and safety around them. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain that as well.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the purposes and objectives of these regulations dealing with the components necessary for the installation of cableways. They seek to establish parallel processes to those in the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Ensuring the safety of cableways is obviously critically important, and we support the instrument’s purpose.

The instrument allows for the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland to take over the role of enforcement body. As I understand it, the UK Accreditation Service will then ensure that an assessment is made by an approved body so that the components for installation meet the required standard. As the Minister said, the setting of standards in the event of no deal will now sit with the Secretary of State as a new extended power.

Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2019

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I was privileged to be in the freight industry for some 20 years and tachographs were always around then, so I think they go back beyond the 1980s. I remember admiring the skill of my staff in looking at the wax discs that were the original tachographs. They could tell just by a glance exactly what that driver had been doing during his or her shift. I welcome, however, the fact that technology moves on here.

I have two questions. I realise that, as the Minister said, this is not a Brexit issue. She rightly emphasises the safety aspect of these regulations. Yet on the political side of the withdrawal agreement, the Government are trying to renegotiate standards in all sorts of ways so they are not tied to European ones. Can the Minister guarantee post Brexit that drivers’ hours will not be lengthened or public safety worsened? That is incredibly important.

The Minister will also be aware that the freight industry has changed hugely over the last 10 years, with e-commerce and the way supply chains and distribution channels work. I guess that the area of safety we are most concerned about is fast-driving white vans and the pressure put on many delivery drivers to meet targets of up to 120 deliveries a day. In my day, that would have been almost impossible. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on how the Government will ensure that the white-van delivery sector is as safe as its elder brother and sister—if you like—such as by bringing the vehicle weight limit down to include tachographs in other categories of vehicles.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I once again thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and effect of these regulations. As has been said, the obligations and requirements in relation to the construction, installation, use, testing and control of tachographs are set out in EU Regulation 165/2014, with the enforcement provisions for these obligations and requirements in the Transport Act 1968 and subsequent regulations made under those provisions.

EU Regulation 165/2014 also provided for detailed provisions relating to new smart tachographs, to be set out in further implementing Acts. Those implementing Acts were adopted via Commission implementation regulation, which came into force on 2 March 2016 and provided for the new smart tachograph requirements to apply in respect of relevant vehicles first registered in member states from 15 June 2019.

As the Minister said, in domestic law, where a vehicle is required to be fitted with a tachograph, that tachograph must have been installed, comply with or be used in accordance with EU Regulation 165/2014, with a person using a vehicle in breach of any one of those requirements having committed an offence. As has been said, these provisions need to be updated so that they may also apply to breaches of the new smart tachograph requirements applicable from 15 June 2019.

I want to raise one query, which may show that I have not really understood the regulations particularly well. Why was this SI not approved prior to 15 June 2019? If the new smart tachograph requirements apply in respect of relevant vehicles first registered in member states from 15 June 2019, and we have not had the enforcement mechanism, does that mean that it has not been possible to take action for breaches of these new smart tachograph requirements in respect of such vehicles in this country? Have I understood that correctly? Could vehicles registered in this country have breached those requirements because the powers were not there to do anything about them? Is that what this is saying, or have I misunderstood, which I accept is quite possible? I would be grateful if the Minister could clear that one up. Obviously, it would be fairly significant if we had been unable to take action in respect of certain vehicles because this SI was not brought forward in time. As I said, I may have misunderstood the documentation that we received.

I also have a couple of other points. In the event of these arrangements coming in, what additional resources, if any, will be provided by the Government to ensure that the new regulations in relation to smart tachographs are actually followed? Will there be a need for additional resources? After Brexit, if the EU expands the types of vehicle that must be fitted with tachographs, will the Government follow suit and adopt those changes to EU regulations?

On my final point, and once again, my information may prove wide of the mark, I understand that the new smart tachographs can communicate remotely with roadside enforcement officers. Has the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency developed the technology required to remotely monitor data gathered by smart tachographs? I ask that because there are suggestions—I choose that word specifically—that the DVSA has not developed this technology. If that is the case, what is the point of smart tachographs if we do not have the technology to collect the data they create?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions today. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned wax cylinders, which was very interesting; I did not know that they were used in that way. Obviously, tachographs nowadays are incredibly smart and can link into the transport system. They can tell people where vehicles are at any time.

They will make a difference to road safety in our system. The noble Lord also raised the question of standards and whether the Government intend to change the standards for drivers’ hours. We have no intention of changing those standards; we have some of the safest roads in the world and we wish to keep it that way. We believe that we are in a good position at the moment. I take his point about the new type of delivery vehicles that we see, often delivering from companies such as Amazon. There has been an explosive increase in those. We have no plans to introduce tachographs into those vehicles at the current time, because they would significantly increase the weight range of the vehicles covered. However, we are of course working with the employers to do what we can to make sure that those drivers not only have good working conditions but are encouraged to keep the roads safe.

I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the timing and powers and whether we have been able to enforce them. This is quite an interesting situation, in that when the European Union introduced this requirement, there was some suggestion that the date might be delayed, as a number of other EU member states and trade associations wanted a delay. They chose not to delay it in the end, but one issue that has now arisen is that there is a supply shortage of these new smart tachographs. This has happened all across the European Union and, therefore, the reality is that not a huge number of these things have been able to be installed because they have not been available. Apparently, there is just one company that makes one component for these tachographs.

What the UK has done is to say that new vehicles that are first registered from 15 June may use the old tachographs. An old tachograph can be put into the vehicle and then, when the new ones are available, they will go in. This has had the effect that the majority of newly registered vehicles still have the traditional—though I assume they are not that traditional—tachographs and these will be switched out when the new ones become available.

I accept that there has been a delay in the timing, which has been caused by the uncertainty over the start date of 15 June and the legal background and context of the SI taking some time to sort out. I reassure the noble Lord that the main reason for these tachographs is drivers’ hours, which are covered under other regulations. The deficiency of powers in this instrument relates simply to not having the new tachographs properly fitted, sealed and calibrated—they have to be calibrated every two years—and using print-out paper that is not approved. Those are the powers that we have not had but will have when this SI has been made. However, we are able to enforce the more significant power on the drivers’ hours as it is.

[Lord Rosser]

Is the Minister saying that we could have vehicles that have been first registered since 15 June that only have or choose to operate the new smart tachograph requirements and that, until now, we have not had any statutory means of enforcing the regulations because this SI had not yet been put before Parliament? I appreciate that the noble Baroness has said that the numbers will be very small, but am I right in saying that there could be vehicles running around with the new smart tachographs for which powers do not exist to enforce the requirements, because this has been delayed?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

There are certain powers that the Government hope to have, after this SI has been made, which we will then be able to use but the reality is that we are talking about very few tachographs. The second issue is that if the DVSA picks up a contravention, it is unlikely to be much broader in terms of the drivers’ hours. There will be reasons for that. The contraventions that the new powers give us are relatively minor, compared to the really significant ones on drivers’ hours contraventions. I will admit to the noble Lord that there are deficiencies in powers, which is what we are trying to rectify today. However, we already have the most significant powers anyway, and it is unlikely that any particular vehicle would be doing just one of these things. It would probably be doing a number of them, otherwise why would they bother not to have it fitted properly unless they were trying to do something untoward?

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned resources. In our opinion, it is likely that no additional resources will be needed on the introduction of these new powers as they will be included in the checks which the DVSA already carries out. It does hundreds of thousands of checks a year; I think it is 200,000. It is incredibly busy in looking at HGVs and making sure that everything is appropriate. The noble Lord also mentioned the technology to monitor the data from the new smart tachographs. Unfortunately, I do not have that information but I will write to him shortly after this debate and give him what information I am able to.

Thomas Cook

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the Commons.

The collapse of Thomas Cook is a tragedy for the 178 year-old iconic business, its customers and its staff here and around the world—many of whom are still working to assist those who are seeking to return home to the UK. I note the inquiries that the Government have initiated. I have a number of issues to raise with the Minister about the background and lead-up to the demise of Thomas Cook.

Last year, the company was urged by its auditor EY to stop using an accounting method that could have been used to flatter its financial performance and, in the process, improve the pay of the top executives, since their bonuses were linked to performance. Given that the Government would have known that the collapse of Thomas Cook would involve taxpayers’ money to bring stranded passengers home, and since the Secretary of State said in his letter to MPs and Peers two days ago that,

“We have been contingency planning for some time to prepare for this scenario”,


what action did the Government take in the light of the auditor’s clear warning about the accounting method being used by Thomas Cook and its impact on flattering financial performance and improving the pay of the few at the very top?

The Times also reported the criticism, including from the Prime Minister, of the top executives of the company for paying themselves large sums of money—a combined total of more than £20 million over the past five years. The only people in Thomas Cook who seem to be coming out of this with plenty of money in their pockets would appear to be those who have been at the top of the company. In the light of the auditor’s concerns on the issue of accounting methods, what pressure, if any, did Ministers put on the directors of Thomas Cook to change their ways?

We certainly know of one area where the Government have done nothing. The previous Secretary of State had said that he would introduce a new levy-funded regime to keep bankrupt airlines flying temporarily, but no legislation has appeared. A review called for changes in the law to enable airlines to continue flying for sufficient time to enable them to repatriate their passengers. However, as I understand it, the Government have not even formally responded to this review. The Minister will know that a similar system exists in some other countries, including in Germany, where Condor, Thomas Cook’s sister airline, operates. I understand that the Government have provided funds to help that company survive. I note that the Minister is looking at whether it is possible for airlines to wind up in an orderly manner without a need for the Government to step in. However, the truth is that the Government have done nothing since the failure of Monarch Airlines two years ago, which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to earlier.

Regarding the Government’s approach over the demise of Thomas Cook, did the Government receive a request for financial support to help tide the company over for the next few months? If so, what exactly was the request, when was it received, what was the Government’s response and what were the reasons for that response? Is it the case that Thomas Cook had reached an agreement or understanding to secure around £200 million with the assistance of the Turkish Government and Spanish hoteliers backed by the Spanish Government but that, when the UK Government indicated they would not act to support a British brand, that effectively killed any such agreement or understanding?

What is the Government’s estimate of the final potential or likely cost to the taxpayer, both direct and indirect, of Thomas Cook’s demise? Can the Minister provide a breakdown of how that estimated or potential cost is made up?

We know that some will benefit from the misery of the 9,000 people losing their jobs in this country, as well as from the disruption and worry experienced by up to 150,000 Thomas Cook customers. For a start, people who have already lost their anticipated holiday due to the decision to let Thomas Cook go to the wall are likely to have to pay considerably more to book another one. The cost of flights is now reported as doubling or trebling—or, to put it euphemistically, as one airline did:

“Our pricing, as is common practice in the travel industry, is based on the principle of supply and demand. As supply reduces, an inevitable consequence is that prices increase”.


There is no doubt that the increased income for the other airlines who are now putting their prices up dramatically will be reflected in substantial increases in the bonuses of those in their boardrooms—paid for by people who had their anticipated holiday with Thomas Cook snatched from them. Do the Government find this acceptable, or do they intend to take any action to ensure that people who have lost their Thomas Cook holiday will be able to secure an alternative, equivalent holiday at no further expense to themselves?

With high streets up and down the country having now lost yet another major name, will the Government be taking any new action to assist our already pressured high streets?

We have also read in the press that international hedge funds which bet against Thomas Cook have made substantial profits from its collapse and the misery of staff and holidaymakers. Apparently, nearly 11% of the travel company’s shares were shorted ahead of its collapse. Hedge funds will also apparently benefit from credit default swaps as a result of the collapse, with payouts expected to reach £201 million. This seems a very similar figure to that which Thomas Cook was seeking and with which the Government declined to assist.

Coming back to the Secretary of State’s letter and his statement that

“We have been contingency planning for some time to prepare for this scenario”,


why is it, then, that some Thomas Cook holidaymakers and staff have apparently been locked out of, or even in, their hotel rooms until they have settled any outstanding bills? The Minister helpfully confirmed that the CAA has taken initial steps to resolve a number of incidents, but are the Government satisfied that this action will be sufficient to avoid any repeats in the days and weeks ahead?

The Government have indicated that they are seeking to help those made redundant to find other jobs. Bearing in mind that Thomas Cook shops are found throughout the country, including in areas where appropriate jobs are in short supply, what timetable have the Government set for finding suitable alternative employment for redundant Thomas Cook staff? Are they guaranteeing that that employment will be at least at or near their current salary levels? Will they ensure that all staff affected receive the compensation and other payments to which they are entitled in full and without employment tribunals?

Like the Minister, let me finish by paying tribute to the team at the Civil Aviation Authority and those in government departments for the work that they are doing to repatriate Thomas Cook passengers. They are displaying a sense of public service and duty. Just as in the case of Monarch Airlines two years ago, their hard work and dedication is highlighting that, when the private sector fails, the public sector has to step in to pick up the pieces.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that long but very useful Statement, and for the letter that was sent out to Members. I echo the thanks to the staff of airlines, customer services, ground crew and so on, who have done so much to restore some order to what could have been a catastrophic situation. Those thanks must especially go to the employees of Thomas Cook, many of whom are showing a degree of compassion and humanity towards their customers that is sadly lacking in the attitude of the directors.

Given what we know already about the state of Thomas Cook, can the Minister say more about how the Government are going to, and I quote from the Statement,

“seek to understand the failings of stewardship”?

I will not repeat the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, but these questions of governance and of the failings of governance are key, both to prevent this happening again and in protecting consumers in this sector and others.

I can understand why the Government were reluctant to go in with a classic bailout, but I wonder whether they ought to have thought more about whether it was possible to fund Thomas Cook for a few weeks, specifically to bring back those customers who were already abroad. Might that not have been more efficient than having to scrape around for aircraft wherever we could get them? I would like to know more about that.

I understand that CAA guarantees to hoteliers apply only to those passengers who have ATOL protection. There are 40% who do not have that protection, and we are hearing all sorts of stories about people being locked out of accommodation. Not everyone has the financial resilience to simply pay a bill on demand to a hotel, especially as they have already paid once for a holiday, so I would like to hear more about the 40% who are not covered.

The Minister may be aware that the vultures are already gathering, and there are stories emerging of scams where people purporting to be from Thomas Cook are offering refunds to get people’s bank details. Will she urgently consider a social media campaign to highlight the dangers of this and setting out exactly what people should do if they have been affected?

High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, not only does High Speed 2 get delayed but even this debate on the Government’s latest High Speed 2 Bill has had to be rescheduled to today from last week. This Second Reading debate is taking place in something of a vacuum. The Government are inviting us to support the Bill, which gives statutory powers to enable the construction and maintenance of phase 2a of High Speed 2 from the West Midlands to Crewe, yet they apparently do not know whether they will be pulling the plug on the whole project in a few weeks’ time. We await the outcome of the review, which is considering whether or not HS2 should still proceed, and if so on what basis, or whether it should be cancelled.

There must be a real prospect of the Government cancelling HS2, first, because the Prime Minister, as with the third runway at Heathrow, has a direct constituency interest and is neither project’s number one fan, and secondly, because the Government have a noteworthy track record of cancelling projects extending railway electrification which they have previously promoted or supported. As recently as 15 July the Government were fully committed to HS2. In the Commons during the final stages of this Bill, the Minister said of HS2:

“It will be transformative not only because it will increase capacity and reduce the time it takes to reach eight of our top 10 cities, but because, along the way, it will smash the north-south divide, creating jobs and opportunities for people in the midlands and the north”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/19; col. 646.]


Earlier, in a Written Statement on 6 February this year, the Government described HS2 as,

“a transformational infrastructure project that will improve people’s journeys, create jobs, generate economic growth and help to rebalance our country’s economy. HS2 is more than a railway and the project’s vision is to be a catalyst for economic growth. It has cross party support and support from councils, LEPs, Metro Mayors and businesses who can see the transformational potential”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/19; col. 15WS.]

Cross-party support includes us, but does that reference to HS2 having cross-party support include the Government? If it does, why was the inquiry set up with a remit that included looking at whether HS2 should proceed at all? This was a point raised by my noble friend Lord Adonis and we expect an answer from the Government when they respond to this debate.

What have the Government just found out that led them to set up the review last month, but of which they were presumably unaware when they were extolling the virtues of HS2 so enthusiastically in the Commons the month before? Will they say by when they expect to receive the findings of the review and when they expect to announce their decision on the future or otherwise of HS2? I ask that in the context of contradictory statements from the Government. On 25 July, in response to a Commons Question on constructing from the north, the Prime Minister said:

“I have asked Doug Oakervee, the former chairman of Crossrail, to conduct a brief six-week study of profiling of the spend on HS2, to discover whether such a proposal might have merit”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/19; col. 1476.]


Which is right about the purpose of this review: the Prime Minister’s statement that it is,

“a brief six-week study of profiling of the spend on HS2”,

or the terms of reference referring to,

“whether and how we proceed with HS2”?

What is the truth, as opposed to confusing statements, about the timescale of the review? On 25 July, the Prime Minister spoke of a “brief six-week study”. That six weeks is already up. Or is it meant to be six weeks from when the Secretary of State for Transport announced the review, on 21 August, in which case the review report will be ready at the beginning of next month? Yet the Government now say it will be completed in the autumn. Is it a six-week review, as the Prime Minister so clearly said? On the assumption that it is, when did the six-week period start?

It is to be expected in a Second Reading debate on a Bill enabling a further stage of HS2 that the Government would say something about not only the costs and benefits of the further stage, but the extent to which the quoted costs and benefits expected for the first stage were or were not still on track. On 15 July the Government told the Commons,

“there is only one budget for HS2, and it is £55.7 billion. The bit we are talking about today, phase 2a, is £3.5 billion. The benefit-cost ratio is £2.30 for every £1 spent”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/19; col. 647.]

Recently, though, the Secretary of State for Transport said in a Written Statement that the chairman of HS2 did not believe that the current scheme design could now be delivered within the budget of £55.7 billion, set in 2015 prices. Instead, the Government said, the chairman of HS2 now estimated that the current scheme required a total budget, including contingency, of £72 billion to £78 billion, again in 2015 prices; and in 2019 prices, £81 billion to £88 billion, against a budget equivalent of £62.4 billion. On the basis of those revised figures for the cost of completing all stages of HS2, will the Government indicate what percentage of those figures is to cover contingencies?

The Government went on to say that HS2 no longer believes that the current schedule of 2026 for initial services on phase 1 was realistic, and that instead there should be a range of dates for the start of the service. The recommendation of the chairman of HS2 was now 2028 to 2031 for phase 1, with a staged opening, starting with initial services between Old Oak Common and Birmingham, followed by services to and from Euston later. HS2 Ltd now, it seems, expects that phase 2b to Manchester and Leeds will open between 2035 and 2040. Significantly for this Bill, the chairman of HS2, according to the Secretary of State, now considers that phase 2a, from the West Midlands to Crewe, should be delivered to the same timetable as phase 1. Furthermore, the chairman was now of the view that the benefits of the current scheme were substantially undervalued. All these views from the chairman of HS2 Ltd would, said the Secretary of State, be assessed by the review panel, which would provide,

“independent recommendations on whether and how we proceed with the project”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/9/19; col. 7WS.]

I hope the Government can tell the House today that they had no inkling that the costs were rather higher than previously stated and that HS2 would not be delivered within previously announced timescales when, in asking for support for the Bill, they told the Commons on 15 July,

“there is only one budget for HS2, and it is £55.7 billion”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/19; col. 647.]

Even the £3.5 billion the Government quoted for phase 2a, to which the Bill relates, is now apparently £3.6 billion to £4 billion. Will the Government indicate how much has been spent so far on HS2, including the value of contracts that have been signed but for which the work has not been completed?

In the light of the view of the chairman of HS2 that the benefits of HS2 are substantially undervalued, can the Government say what the current figures are for the benefits arising from HS2 and whether they include the potential wider economic impact of changes in land use and values as a result of HS2 and the transformative effect that it can have, both on the locations directly benefiting from the improved transport links and locations on other rail routes where capacity would be released for new or additional services?

Could the Government also say for how many years into the future are the economic benefits, including wider economic benefits, accruing from HS2 currently calculated and taken into account in assessing the overall benefit and value to the nation of the project? Are those overall benefits taken into account only for a specific fixed period—and if so, what is that period—or are they calculated and assessed as delivering effectively permanent wider economic benefits resulting in a higher overall value figure, since presumably, for example, the favourable impact HS2 already appears to be having on regeneration in Birmingham is very much of long-term value and permanent benefit to the city?

We now have the HS2 chairman’s recent report, or stocktake, on the current status of the project. It has been quite extensively redacted. In the Commons on 5 September, the Secretary of State said:

“I am unhappy about having any of that report redacted. I have read the rest of it. It is not hugely exciting. I pushed back on that with the Department, and apparently it is just that the lawyers are saying that it is commercially confidential stuff that I cannot force to be released”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/19; col. 354.]


Could the Government say who determines whether something in a report is commercially confidential and who determines that commercial confidentiality outweighs the public interest in knowing about the information that is being withheld? Could they also say what would be the consequences, and for whom, of the Secretary of State releasing information that the lawyers had deemed commercially confidential? What contracts, if any and with whom, would be broken or breached by releasing such information as is in the HS2 chairman’s report? Who are the signatories to those contracts?

Phase 2a is the first step to delivering the whole of phase 2, which extends HS2 north from Birmingham. It is intended that the opening of phase 2a will result in further west coast main line services transferring on to the HS2 route, freeing up capacity on the existing west coast main line between Lichfield and Crewe. With the completion of phase 2a, the journey time from Crewe to London would be cut from 90 minutes today to under an hour by 2027, while HS2 journeys north of Birmingham would be up to 13 minutes faster than they will be following the construction of phase 1 of HS2.

HS2 has the support of the chief executive of the South Cheshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who has already made clear its beneficial impacts for Crewe. It has the support of the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region, local authority leaders in Leeds and Newcastle among others, and Transport for the North. It is also important for the delivery of northern powerhouse rail, which requires HS2 infrastructure to provide 50% of the new lines it needs for key parts of its services in and around Leeds and Manchester.

HS2 says that it is one of the most scrutinised organisations in the country, with oversight from the Department for Transport, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority. It is clear from the sudden announcement a few days ago of delay and significant increases in costs that that extensive oversight has proved less than adequate, as something major has emerged for the first time about the HS2 project which could and should have come to light much earlier.

My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe has indicated the issues that we will be pursuing: accountability and transparency, connectivity and the quality of links between HS2 and other relevant parts of the existing network, and compensation for tenants. I do not intend to repeat them in any detail.

It was a Labour Government who were the driving force behind HS2 and it was my noble friend Lord Adonis who, as Secretary of State for Transport, got it off the ground. This Government appear to have failed to exercise proper control over the progress of the project in all its aspects and thus failed to deliver proper accountability to Parliament. Now they look as though they could be getting cold feet and are looking to the recently appointed review panel to bail them out. What we do not know is whether, for the Government and the Prime Minister, bailing out means providing a justification to proceed, a justification to emasculate, a justification to abandon or simply a case for kicking the whole matter of the future of HS2 into the long grass during the run-up to a general election.

We continue to support the HS2 project because of the extensive and wide-ranging economic and other benefits it will deliver for the nation as a whole, in addition to addressing major capacity problems on the west coast main line, which would only get worse if HS2 is abandoned. We thus support this Bill giving the statutory go-ahead to enable phase 2a to proceed. The question is whether the Government still fully support their own Bill and the project, after more than nine years of actively supporting and progressing with the construction of HS2. Or, incredibly, will today be the last we will see of this Bill or any further Bills providing for the completion of the construction and development of HS2? I hope the Government can clearly and emphatically indicate now that they intend to proceed with this project.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this wide-ranging debate. I am heartened by the amount of support that this project still has across the Chamber. I recognise that I will never be able to make my noble friend Lord Framlingham happy on this one. I will work on the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and might get there in the end—we are going to keep trying, because it is a very important project.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made some particularly important points about these large critical infrastructure projects and the difficulties this country faces in the way that we are set up and do our budgeting, scheduling and timetabling. Certainly, over the longer term some changes will probably happen in those areas. It is the same in rail as in roads, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who spoke about roads being vital. As Roads Minister I completely agree with him. The Government are committing vast sums of money to improvements in both roads and rail, which are absolutely essential. The next RIS2 will have £25.3 billion to spend. On rail, we are spending £48 billion in the next control period, which is significantly more than we have spent on our railways for a very long time.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that this has pretty much always been about capacity—it just happens to be called High Speed 2. If I could have one wish in my life, it would be to change the name of this project. Calling it High Speed 2 has caused so many problems. It is a high-speed railway, I completely get that, but it is about capacity. Although it might be possible to slow down the railway, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, suggested, that would cut capacity. However, that is one of things that the Oakervee review will look at.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, stated that this project was transformative and mentioned many other times when Members both in the other place and in this House, from the Government and beyond, talked about its transformative nature. It is very difficult to disagree, but “transformative” can mean many different things. We must be absolutely clear—this is what Oakervee will do—that the benefits and costs are appropriate for this project. That is the reason for the review.

[Lord Rosser]

Can I take it then, in the light of that comment, that the Government are not prepared to rule out this project being cancelled?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The Prime Minister has been very clear that nothing has been taken off the table. Imagine if the numbers came out as £100 billion to build it with benefits of only £50 billion. The noble Lord might have a slight problem with saying yes to a project with numbers like that. We know that things are under review, but we have also seen the report from Allan Cook—

[Lord Rosser]

I would agree, if we were faced with figures such as those which appeared to completely change the situation, but I imagine that if we reached that stage there would be an immediate inquiry into how the original figures were ever produced.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That may well be the case, but we are now talking about hypotheticals, so I suggest that we wait until the review has finished and look at its conclusions in the context of the report from Allan Cook. The Government will make a decision at that time.

I turn to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, about why we do not have a long-term railway strategy. That is exactly what we are doing at the moment with the Williams rail review, which is looking at the status of the rail network and the service operators to see whether and how we can improve the system for the future.

I turn to some of the more specific points raised by noble Lords. There was a bit of discussion around investment in the north and how important it is; that was brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is of course absolutely critical, as the Government recognise. Northern Powerhouse Rail could be transformative for the north, but probably not in isolation. It needs to be part of a larger project, which is why the Government are supporting Transport for the North to develop the options for Northern Powerhouse Rail. We committed £60 million at the spending review in 2015 and £37 million in 2018, which is on top of the £300 million we have committed to make sure that HS2 infrastructure accommodates a future Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midlands services. Therefore it is part of a bigger project, and other developments are certainly being included.

On the Oakervee review and accountability, I have already mentioned that costs, timescales and benefits will all be tied up in the review. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, spoke about accountability and HS2. I refer him to a comment made by my colleague the Transport Secretary, who was very clear that he wanted us to be as transparent as possible. That includes on costs and schedule, which is why we published the Cook report. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised that as well. Therefore, there will be more transparency and accountability. We are not minded to introduce quarterly reporting on HS2 at the moment, as it already provides reports to Parliament, as required by the framework document, and we believe that that level is proportionate and sufficient. Of course, noble Lords may request debates on HS2 at any time.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, claimed that it was a bit left hand/right hand, given my opening remarks and the fact that we are having a review. However, I do not see it like that. The process for HS2 is positive, and the review we are having is a sensible reconsideration of the facts. A sensible reconsideration should never be confused for a lack of support.

A number of noble Lords mentioned whether work should continue during the Oakervee review. Certainly, the Prime Minister was very clear that the fact that we are having a review should not unnecessarily delay the progress of HS2. That would be wrong, and it would mean that costs would rise. That is why limited enabling works are being undertaken by HS2, and why your Lordships are being asked to consider phase—

Egypt: Suspension of Flights

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

This is an operational matter for BA. It has taken the measures it has as a precaution, and it is up to it to decide how it operates. I am happy to confirm to the noble Baroness the travel advice currently on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, which has not substantively changed. While it does not advise against travel to or from Cairo Airport, it reminds visitors that:

“Terrorists in Egypt likely maintain the intent and capability to target aviation. The greatest threat is on the Sinai Peninsula where Daesh operate with greater freedom, but terrorists are active in Mainland Egypt, including Cairo”.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In the light of the Government’s answer—that it is British Airways’ own decision to do this, based, presumably, on its information and intelligence—have the Government contacted British Airways to ask what information it has that has led it to this decision?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am reluctant to go into great detail about security matters but I can assure the noble Lord that the Government remain in close contact with all UK airlines about security matters that could affect their operations. We are also in contact with our partners around the world, as appropriate.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank my noble friend for his observation; I know that he speaks with great experience. It is entirely reasonable for individual airlines to make appropriate operational decisions. In the case of British Airways, it has taken the decision that it has as a precautionary measure.

[Lord Rosser]

I do not wish to upset the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, but I do not think that I have challenged the right of British Airways to make this decision or said that it may not be an entirely sensible one. But clearly, if the Government have some idea as to why BA has made this decision, why are they not advising other airlines flying direct from Britain to Cairo to take similar action in respect of their flights?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot go into much further detail about the security information, where it might have come from and who might have had it, whether that is airlines or nation states. Suffice it to say that we maintain a good and open relationship with all UK airlines and they are able to make their own operational decisions.