Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 8th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

In 2021, we asked National Highways to undertake a study looking at possible interventions on or around the M65 at Colne. That study focused on localised congestion pinch points on that road, which is owned and managed by Lancashire County Council. It concluded in 2022, and the findings were handed over to the council and Transport for the North. It is for them to decide what further action they may wish to take as a result, but I know they will, and they certainly should, attend closely to what my hon. Friend said.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There is real frustration because the Secretary of State and the rail Minister will not talk and settle the dispute between the trade unions and the operators. No talks have been held since the beginning of the year. When I speak to the rail companies, they say they want to do a deal and they believe that there is a pathway to end the dispute. When I speak to the trade unions—ASLEF and RMT—they say the same. So why will he not get round the table and end the dispute?

Health and Social Care Levy

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

No. I have already taken a few, and I will go on a bit further, if I may, and then I will take some more interventions. [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman has had a fairly substantial go at points of order already, and I welcome his later intervention.

The levy will apply UK-wide to taxpayers liable to class 1 employee and employer, class 1A, class 1B and class 4 self-employed NICs. However, it will not apply where taxpayers pay class 2 NICs or class 3 NICs. It will be introduced from April 2022, and then from April 2023 the levy will also apply to those working over the state pension age. As my hon. and right hon. Friends will understand, it takes time for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to prepare its systems for such a major shift. That is why, in 2022-23, the levy will be delivered through a temporary increase in NICs rates of 1.25% for one year only. All revenues generated by this increase will be ring-fenced and paid to NHS England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales and the equivalent in Northern Ireland.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister not recognise the burden he is placing on small businesses, many of which the Government completely excluded and failed to support during the pandemic, in their now having to pay this extra levy, as opposed to making a fair taxation system that falls on those who can pay the most?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will be aware that, because of the employment allowance, the bottom 40% of businesses will pay nothing and the next 40% will pay an average of £450. So this does not fall heavily on the bottom end of businesses, and of course it comes in a context in which the Government have provided over £400 billion of support to business and to the nation as a whole in the course of fighting the pandemic. In that sense it is, and it has been recognised to be by reputable independent commentators, a broad-based approach.

From April 2023, once HMRC systems have been updated, a formal legal surcharge of 1.25% will replace the temporary increase in NICs rates, which will return to their previous level. Again, this revenue will be ring-fenced in law for health and for social care only. As the Chancellor stated yesterday, this levy is no stealth tax. That is why the exact amount that each employee pays will also be visible as a separate line on their payslip. Finally, the levy will be administered by HMRC, and collected by the current reporting and collection procedures for NICs—pay-as-you-earn and income tax self-assessment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If he will ensure that people who are unable to participate in work as a result of (a) home schooling and (b) following other Government covid-19 guidance have equitable access to financial support schemes.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

Since their introduction, the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme have been available to those unable to go to work because of caring responsibilities arising from covid-19, such as caring for a home schooling child or caring for a vulnerable individual. Those who are unable to work from home and have been told to shield have also been eligible for these support schemes, as well as for statutory sick pay and employment and support allowance.

[Rachael Maskell [V]]

The Chancellor has let the financial burden of covid-19 fall on women. They have undertaken twice as much home schooling as men. One in five have had to cut their hours. Some 78% of working mothers have not been offered furlough and 71% of those who asked for it have been refused. Will the Chancellor recognise that once again women have disproportionately paid the price of the inequality in his policies? Will he undertake an immediate equality impact assessment and set out in his Budget how he will offer redress for these widening gendered inequalities?

[Jesse Norman]

The truth is that this pandemic has had a desperately difficult effect for the whole of the UK economy, and for families and people across our country and regions. It is appropriate to recognise the totality of the difficulty we find ourselves in. It is true that many women have found themselves in the position of either caring for home schooling or vulnerable individuals. They are supported and protected through the schemes we have put in place. Of course, over and above those schemes, we have also put in place significant amounts of support for remote education, laptops and councils to help vulnerable individuals.

Rating and Valuation

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

Let me start by responding to the comments from the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who raised a series of questions of a technical nature. She asked why the Government are continuing to use RPI versus CPI, and I was grateful that she acknowledged that the policy has been one of slow alignment. In September 2019, the Chancellor announced that the Government and the UK Statistics Authority would jointly consult on proposals to address shortcomings in RPI. We expect that consultation to launch at the time of the Budget.

I am sure the shadow Minister is aware—I think she hinted at this—that since 2010 the Government have been reducing the use of RPI, and we will continue to do so where practicable. She asked why primary legislation had not been used in the context of this instrument. The answer is that the Government have made a commitment that this will be permanent and that they will use CPI for the uprating of business rates. We have also said—if we have not, let me say it now—that we will consider introducing primary legislation in due course, but the parliamentary timetable is very congested and we have to make sure it can fit alongside many other items, including items to which I am sure she is thoroughly committed.

The shadow Minister talked about raising thresholds. As I think she will acknowledge, we have increased the rate for the retail discount, and the pubs discount has been set at a high level and so includes a great number of pubs. She asked about the review. We have said we will launch a review in due course. I will not go further than that, although at this time of the year it does not require the application of rocket science to see when “in due course” might ultimately land.

Finally, the shadow Minister talked about local government. Of course, she is right to focus on the importance of business rates to local government funding. I had the British Retail Consortium in to see me only recently, and I talk closely with all those affected by the rate. As she will be aware, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government published the provisional 2020-21 local government finance settlement in December, which set out an additional £2.9 billion in core funding, as announced in the spending review 2019. As she also knows, however, it is not just a matter of what funding is provided by central Government; it is also a matter of what core spending power is available to local authorities.

I am pleased to welcome the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), who made her maiden speech. I congratulate her and welcome her to her place in the House. She got wonderful support from her colleagues on the Opposition Benches, which is always a comfort when doing one’s maiden speech, so I congratulate her on that as well. She described herself as a woman with an opinion. In this House, anyone who can describe themselves like that will go a long way, so I congratulate her again. Just to correct the public record, however, I hope she will recognise that Tory support for Liverpool goes back a long way. Michael Heseltine was recently given the freedom of the city in recognition of his support, and I think that everyone can see the difference and the energy the city has at the moment. The Government are seeking to support it and the mayoralty in many different ways.

Question put and agreed to.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could assist me. When we have a public health scare, we expect the Government to be in control. Yesterday, I raised the serious issue of how information about the coronavirus infection was being shared and how getting communications right was crucial to alleviating public concern while also protecting the public. Today we have learnt that the information provided concerning those infected with coronavirus was incorrect. The student did access student accommodation—Vita Student accommodation—despite our being told they had not. There is confusion over how information is being gathered and shared, which could have a serious impact on public confidence in how the coronavirus is being managed. The Government need to get a grip as we may be in the early stages of the management of this infection. Could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, advise the House on whether the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care intends to make a further statement to the House, in particular to address the management of communications surrounding coronavirus, in the light of the latest developments?

Draft Licensing of Operators and International Road Haulage (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Monday 11th March 2019 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Member for York Central for her barrage of questions, to which I am very happy to respond. She deplores the time that it has taken to introduce the measure. All I would say to her is that the measure makes virtually no changes to the operating arrangements for UK hauliers, and indeed no changes for EU hauliers. It is therefore not something that has required enormous wrenching change of any kind. Essentially, we are tweaking, very slightly, the domestic regime in this area, in order to address legal concerns arising from the UK’s separation from the EU.

The hon. Lady asked whether there will be additional staff costs. I can tell her that as this is a minimal set of changes, there are minimal costs associated with it. There are no additional staff.

In response to another question the hon. Lady raised, we do not expect any additional enforcement, because the existing enforcement agencies function extremely well, as matters stand. She will be aware that the Treasury has agreed to fund any additional costs—up to the limits described—associated with any additional force that may be required, but we do not expect wrenching change in this area.

The hon. Lady will also be aware that these regulations come at this time not only because these things are always subject to negotiations, and we are just one half of a set of negotiators, but because we started out with a high level of alignment, and there has been a high level of mutual understanding and trust between officials in this country and in the EU, as well as in member states.

The hon. Lady raised a question about the Secretary of State having the power under these regulations to suspend operations. I point out to her that that is only for a limited period. Any further extension of the requirement to suspend operations would be subject to proper parliamentary process, as would be appropriate for the exercise of a power of this kind. That is the counterpart of the very liberal approach we are taking towards the EU’s cabotage rights in this opening period.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity of his response. Could he set out the timeframe for bringing forward more permanent legislation, which is what I understand he is saying will happen? How will that be brought forward?

[Jesse Norman]

As I recall, the Secretary of State has the capacity to suspend operations for a period of six months and then for another period of six months, after which the matter must come before Parliament. That is an appropriate use of the power. The purpose of it is to ensure that UK hauliers get a square deal in terms of cabotage, and so enable the rather liberal approach we have taken with regard to the EU. It is an index of how modest the change is that for UK hauliers, the Community licence is changing, in this country, to a UK licence for the Community. It is a very modest change indeed.

The hon. Lady asks whether there have been consultations with industry. My officials are having very close discussions with the industry. That process has been under way for many long months. I also meet regularly with representative bodies of the industry to ensure that we are closely aligned. Many of the measures that we have put forward have been welcomed by them, recognising the fact that the situation is not one that hauliers would have originally voted for or supported at the time of the referendum, but that is up to them.

As to negotiations beyond 2019, the hon. Lady will be aware that the European Commission has already made it clear that for the first nine months after exit, the draft legislation would apply. That legislation, as I have described, based on UK reciprocity, permits a relatively benign environment to continue. After that, the matter is subject to negotiations. Having addressed all those matters, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport Infrastructure: Essex

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This has been a very interesting debate. Of course, the focus has rightly been on Essex infrastructure, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for raising some other issues, and of course I will discuss them all.

Above all, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) not only on securing the debate, but on her Churchillian 37-minute speech. That is a new record for me in a Westminster Hall debate. It was very wide-ranging and interesting. She has been absolutely tireless in pressing the claims of not merely her constituency but Essex as a county. She gives indefatigability a bad name. If it were not for our relentless desire to maintain efficiency in the Department for Transport, we would have Patel SWAT teams scrambling every time she moves, and cross-modal engagement klaxons going off every time we heard something. If we did that, we would hear an awful lot of noise, because she has been very active in this area.

I am also aware of the work that my right hon. Friend has done elsewhere—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) touched on this—not just as head of the Great Eastern main line taskforce but as chair of the Essex Business, Transport and Infrastructure Forum, highlighting the importance of infrastructure in building sustainable local communities and strong local economies. That is all extremely welcome.

My right hon. Friend rightly focused on the natural, physical and human endowments that Essex has as a county. It has a very strong local economy and a resident population of 1.5 million-odd people. It has a very entrepreneurial spirit and workforce, and the growing economy reflects that. It is a very exciting place to do business, and that is tremendous. That has drawn on and created a need for transport connectivity.

The nationally important M11 and M25, which colleagues did not mention, and the A12 and A120 run through the county, and there are major local roads, including the A13, the A27—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East was very eloquent on that topic—the A100 and the A414. Rail connections ensure that the county remains tightly linked to London, with three main lines, the London underground to Upminster and branch lines serving more than 55 stations. It would be wrong not to mention its international gateway of Stansted and Southend, which is growing very rapidly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham mentioned. Harwich provides nationally important sea connections to Holland and Denmark. There are also Tilbury and the new London Gateway port. It is a very exciting place.

My right hon. Friend mentioned Essex’s agricultural strength. It cannot quite match the astonishing range, diversity and depth of my county of Herefordshire, but it is right up there. As I am sure she will agree, the transport network is not just of critical importance to the economic growth and development of Essex, but of national significance. It is an important piece of infrastructure in its wider economic growth and development benefits across the country.

Let me touch on the issues that my right hon. Friend raised in some depth. She is right to focus on the importance of infrastructure. We have recognised that and have invested in the strategic road network, which is critical to delivering that growth. In December 2014 the Government launched the first road investment strategy, which outlined how more than £15 billion is to be invested in our strategic roads between 2015 and 2021. That is the biggest upgrade to strategic roads in a generation, and it will be exceeded in RIS2 from 2025, which is of the scale of £25 billion.

The hon. Member for York Central rightly drew attention to the importance of combating emissions. We have a very strong air quality strategy and have launched an enormous amount of work not just on emissions but on decarbonisation. We have a lot of work about to come out shortly on future mobility, electric vehicles and the like. It includes not just cars, but the full panoply of electric vehicles that are transforming our streets.

It is important to recognise that some road building is vital, and it would be a poor Minister who did not recognise both that and the validity of claims for road building in counties, not merely as an economic and housing enabler, but as an investment in skills, supply chains and businesses, and one that will prepare us for a green future with electric and, in due course, autonomous vehicles.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I have so much to get through in only 10 minutes. I will be delighted to come back to the hon. Lady when I mention her remarks later in my speech, but I will make the important point that we must recognise balance and that, even by her lights of supporting skills and reducing emissions in the longer term, this is actually an enlightened policy. Much of it is about maintenance—autonomous vehicles will require high-quality roads—and that process cannot begin too soon. RIS1 and RIS2 place a very high emphasis on maintenance.

To zero-in on Essex, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham pointed out that the first road investment strategy includes the widening of the A12 between junction 19 at Chelmsford and junction 25 at Marks Tey, where it currently joins the A120. Delivery of that scheme remains a top priority for my Department, as it is an important strategic route for continued economic prosperity across the region. She also highlighted the delays that have affected the scheme. I will not get into the causation, and she has been very delicate in hinting at causation without specifically stating it. As she knows, there was an initial re-profiling delay, but the fundamental delay was not at all of the Government’s making. Local priorities have changed and we are seeking to accommodate those changes. I will respond to her specific questions—we owe her that as she was kind enough to share them in advance—but I can assure the Chamber that we understand the frustration felt by local communities that works will not begin by March 2020 as was originally proposed. We very much understand that.

We have been considering how best to take forward the A12 scheme in the light of the interaction with the proposed garden community in Marks Tey, as my right hon. Friend touched on. That interdependency was of course raised by the Planning Inspectorate, which examined those housing proposals in June 2018. We believe—as I think she does—that it is important to find the right long-term solution for the local community and to support delivery of the proposed housing at Marks Tey, which would mean the delivery of up to 24,000 much-needed homes.

Highways England is working with partners in Government, local planning authorities and promoters of the new housing development. The next step is for Highways England to consult on the revised route options for the A12 between junctions 24 and 25. The route options will have regard to the housing proposals and—we hope—ensure that the improvements are right for those who use the A12 now and in the future. In the light of the recent delays, Highways England’s latest delivery plan, which was published in July 2018, proposes that works for the A12 begin in the second road investment period, from 2020 to 2025. I wish that were otherwise, but we have had our hand forced somewhat and are scrambling to make the best of the situation.

As I am sure my right hon. Friend will also know, Essex has ambitious plans for housing delivery. The housing White Paper set out the Government’s wider vision to address issues such as unaffordable housing and the provision of proper transport infrastructure, and the Department works closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in that area. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) mentioned housing infrastructure fund bids. They are a crucial part of Essex’s further development, and I say good luck to any hon. Member in the Chamber. Trying to tie in the response to those housing bids with local and strategic transport links is part of the importance of our wider strategic approach, unlocking new housing developments with good transport connections in places where people want to live. Essex is delivering that kind of substantial housing growth in major sites such as Braintree, Chelmsford and Marks Tey, which are critical to meet housing demand. Of course, we recognise the centrality of transport to making them happen.

Well-planned, well-designed and locally-led garden communities can play a vital role in helping to meet this country’s housing needs well into the future. That is why the Government recognise and have invested in the development of capacity towards 23 places across the country as part of our garden communities programme. We are pleased that Essex County Council has decided to further support North Essex Garden Communities by submitting a HIF bid. That has the potential to make an enormous difference, including by releasing funding that ensures that the proposed A12 improvements can accommodate and allow access to the garden communities at Marks Tey, subject to further public consultation.

There has been some concern that the delay to the A12 scheme will compromise the proposal to dual the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham mentioned. Essex County Council is developing that scheme for potential inclusion in the second road investment strategy. I can confirm that, from our perspective, the A12 delay does not affect or compromise consideration of the A120 scheme and that, although we cannot make announcements on the fly, I expect us to make a consolidated set of announcements on this area and others later in the year.

The A120 is recognised as an important route in the wider transport network, but currently the single-carriageway section between Braintree and the A12 near Colchester is regularly a bottleneck, as has been pointed out. The heavy traffic passing through the area is a burden on the local villages and towns. We have supported Essex County Council with a contribution of £4 million to the development work for an affordable and deliverable improvement scheme for the A120. I thank the council and take my hat off to Councillor Kevin Bentley, who is sitting in the Public Gallery, for their excellent work in developing those proposals, including taking them through a non-statutory public consultation on a range of options.

The council’s favoured option for the A120 scheme, which was announced in June 2018, is supported by a strong analytical assessment and has gained the backing of both the public and the local business community. It forms the foundation for consideration of the scheme as a candidate in the competition for the bidding process of our second road investment strategy, which focuses on the period between 2020 and 2025 and has been subject to enormous competition, as colleagues will understand. It is in the nature of politics that everyone regards their own bid as the only one that the Government should ever meet and do so as a priority, and this debate has been no different. I remind colleagues that that can be said for every single Member of this House, and across all parties.

Submissions in favour of the A120 upgrade have been received but there was also support for the schemes that were originally included in RIS1 for development in RIS2, such as the A12 Colchester bypass widening that we discussed and the improvement of the A12-M25 to Chelmsford. They are all being considered for inclusion in RIS2, alongside other proposals from across the country.

Beyond the upgrades and improvement schemes, the Government continue to invest in essential maintenance of the road network. For the period 2018-19, £34.8 million was allocated for Essex road maintenance, with a further figure of almost £700,000 earmarked for pothole action funding in the area. Through the local growth fund, we have also allocated £15 million to the proposed £28.7 million improvements to the A127-A130 Fairglen interchange, which will improve traffic flow, journey times and road safety at an important local junction. Essex County Council is developing the final business case and, if the scheme is approved, work could start in the summer of 2020 and be completed in early 2022.

My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned the lower Thames crossing. If ever there were a scheme that underlined—contrary to the shadow Minister’s suggestions —the genuinely strategic nature of the investment that this country is making, that would be it, with between £4.4 billion and £6.2 billion-worth of investment to increase capacity by 70% for drivers crossing the Thames to the east of London. That investment is orientated absolutely towards the longer term. A Government preoccupied with the short term could not make an investment of that scale or magnitude, or with such a degree of planning. It will almost double the road capacity across the River Thames to the east of London. It is the largest single road investment project in the UK since the M25 was completed more than 30 years ago.

Obviously, there is a need for better road connectivity between Essex and Kent, and we believe that the benefits of the lower Thames crossing are clear. We expect it to have a positive impact on the major road network, contribute to a reduction in the number of vehicles using the Dartford crossing—releasing some of the pressure on it—and assist and support local communities.

The other strategic connection is of course rail. My right hon. Friend mentioned the importance to the Essex economy of the Great Eastern main line and the West Anglia main line. The Government recognise that and—again, contrary to the imputation that we are not being strategic—are pursuing the biggest railway modernisation programme since Victorian times, with investment continuing at record levels. That was announced by the Secretary of State within the final statement of funds available—approximately £47.9 billion will be spent during the period 2019 to 2024, which is a run rate of about £10 billion a year. That is an astonishing level of investment. Greater Anglia is committed, through the franchise, to delivering an entirely new train fleet, which will increase passenger capacity with new high-quality rolling stock. The first of 169 new trains are on course to enter service from the end of May 2019, with the full roll-out expected to be completed by the end of 2020. That £1.4 billion train replacement programme is the most significant investment in new trains for East Anglia.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work done by the Great Eastern main line taskforce, chaired now by my right hon. Friend and previously by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. It is working to complete the study undertaken by Network Rail, which will help to prioritise future rail enhancements on the main line to meet predicted growth, and updates to a previous route study. My right hon. Friend mentioned a number of other rail schemes. If I may, I will refer those via officials to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), as he can respond in more detail to her questions.

The hon. Member for York Central asked if we would take a more strategic view. I refer her to the work we are doing on intermodal connectivity, the link between transport and housing and the longevity of the investment scheme. Let us not forget that there was no five-year investment programme before 2015. We are now preparing for a second five-year road investment scheme. We are extending that to major roads, and I hope that in due course we will extend it to a five-year investment scheme to support local authorities on local roads. We take these things very seriously. She mentioned light rail, and I am delighted that we announced a consultation on it a few weeks ago. I look forward to her contribution and those of many others. She rightly mentioned active travel, in which we have significantly improved investment since 2010, and I hope that will continue to do that.

On Highways England designated funds, RIS2 is not yet completed so it is too early to say that money has not been spent, but we welcome further bids from local authorities and other interested parties. I am taking steps to increase the availability of designated funds in future.

[Rachael Maskell]

I was referring to RIS1, not RIS2.

[Jesse Norman]

Yes; RIS1 has not yet completed so it is premature to suggest that the money has not been used.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East seductively enticed me towards a tiny change of one letter to another—a wafer-thin change. I am grateful to him for that. He pointed out the importance of widening for consistent speeds, with the impetus on re-trunking with a focus on the airport. I understand that, but the key question is whether either the A127 or the A13 should be trunked. Discussions are happening, or are about to happen, with local councils on that question. I can make no judgment on the merits of the case—that is a matter for official scrutiny and discussion—but I would have some worries about the potential environmental impact. It is important that there be a properly wide-ranging conversation, and we are engaging on that. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss that further, I would be happy to meet him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester rightly pointed out the importance of HIF bids and the centrality of the new link road between the A133 and the A120, which he has called for. I cannot comment on the road, but his emphasis on road safety is right. I have addressed many of the other issues he raised already. I would be delighted to meet him to talk about the A12. It is important that we adopt a strategic approach when we have such meetings, not least because there has been a lot of discussion with Essex MPs in any case on roads. We can have one-off meetings, but it is helpful to have them in the context of a wider strategic conversation.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham asked at what point a Government Minister will give leadership. I have explained that we are still reliant on a series of local decisions. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss the best way to take forward the A12 scheme. Once those housing proposals are settled, we will be in a much better place. Highways England, which works closely with Essex County Council and other district councils in promoting garden communities and developing the realignment options for the A12, is not in a position—neither are we—to commit now to a realignment of the A12. That is potentially a very significant additional cost, but may prove not to be needed in the event that the housing proposals do not go ahead. She is right to maintain the tempo and we will meet her on that, but we are reliant on decisions made locally. I understand that the council has agreed to undertake the work requested by the inspector; that is scheduled to be completed by June 2019, with a public consultation expected in autumn 2019. With luck, decisions on route alignment can be made in a co-ordinated fashion after that.

My right hon. Friend asked what assessment the Government may have made on the impact of the delays on the economy and on other strategic road schemes. We are acutely aware of the economic impact, which is why it is a priority for us to ensure that we get the right solution across all the considerations. The Government have made it clear that we are committed to strategic road schemes such as the A120 dualling and the delays. We also believe that the A12 scheme delays should not affect the prospects for the A120 proposal or compromise its consideration for inclusion in RIS2.

My right hon. Friend asked what has been done to support constituents who live close to the A12 and are unable to sell properties, and the victims of blight. I have massive sympathy for people in that situation—it goes with uncertainty about these decisions. We have not been the cause of that uncertainty. There are established rules about property and compensation for residents affected by major infrastructure proposals. They apply in this case, but I understand the human cost of the delay.

My right hon. Friend asked whether I recognised that the delays to the A12 widening scheme might delay plans to widen the A12 north of junction 25. The scheme to widen the A12 Colchester bypass was included along with the Chelmsford bypass in RIS1. These are being developed as potential candidates for RIS2, along with the proposed A120 scheme and other proposals across the country. We are determined to run a fair process on the merits, but the merits of Essex are considerable, so we hope they will be successful.

I recognise the importance of the county of Essex as a driver of growth and a source of much-needed housing. However, there are also further opportunities for the region to take advantage of Government funding and investment, such as the housing infrastructure fund, and I urge colleagues and Essex County Council to renew their excellent work in developing a robust, evidence-based case for the inclusion of their schemes in the second road investment strategy.

Draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Monday 12th November 2018 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

Let me pick up the questions that have been asked. The hon. Member for York Central asked whether the fines are set at a level that will ensure effective enforcement. We believe that they are, as does expert opinion, because the enforcement tracks the levels currently levied for domestic offences. If the offence goes further than that and becomes a matter of systemic abuse or fraud, then different laws apply and different fines—potentially much larger ones—can apply as well.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister refers to domestic offences, but we are talking about commercial offences, which are completely different. Could he comment on that and say where his expert evidence stems from?

[Jesse Norman]

For example, the fine for using a vehicle

“in…contravention of the requirement to possess a Community licence”

is £100. The fine for causing or permitting

“a breach of a prohibition…on taking a vehicle to a country without reasonable excuse”

is £300. These are well-recognised numbers within our domestic enforcement.

[Rachael Maskell]

What about commercial fines?

[Jesse Norman]

That is precisely what they apply to: the domestic commercial environment. If someone commits multiple offences, they can be fined on multiple different grounds. If someone commits systemic or fraudulent offences, they will of course be prosecuted at a significantly greater level.

The hon. Member for Gedling asked how long people have to pay. If it is a fixed penalty deposit, they are required to pay immediately at the roadside, and they can be immobilised if they fail to do so or if there is a risk that they might flee. In response to his other question, if they fail to do so they can be taken to court. The normal regime of enforcement applies.

[Jesse Norman]

In previous Committees I have described several scenarios and set out why we believe that hauliers will be able to get permits in each case, whether through a liberalised trade regime, through a European Conference of Ministers of Transport regime or through bilateral arrangements. None of those, however, is germane to the question before the Committee, which is what the fines associated with the various offences should be.

Let me fill out the picture. The Committee will recall that we undertook a consultation on the level of fines. There has already been considerable discussion with industry on the matter.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister has not yet answered my question about whether the fines will be used to offset the costs of the scheme. Will he make it clear where the money from the fines will go?

[Jesse Norman]

The fines will track our usual approach. They will go into general Treasury funds, as they would under any circumstances; they will not be used as some form of offset or—

[Rachael Maskell]

The Treasury, not the Department?

Draft International Road Transport Permits (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 Draft Trailer Registration Regulations 2018

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Tuesday 6th November 2018 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I think the hon. Gentleman may have misread or misheard the main debate, because there has always been a possibility that there would not be enough ECMT permits to go around. That is why there are elements for a fair allocation, even in that contingency. The point I have just made is that bilateral agreements also exist to provide further reassurance. As I have said, though, we do expect a liberalised deal to be in place before then.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I certainly heard what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun heard during the debate. We were given assurances that there would be sufficient permits to go around, and I am sure that the record will confirm that. Why have the circumstances changed?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will recall that there was an extensive debate on the question whether there should be any aspect of random allocation. The whole point about random allocation is that in circumstances in which there may not be enough ECMT permits to go around, further scope would be provided by bilateral agreements under this remote contingency. If that were to be the case, random selection would, of course, be applied to make sure that people were given a fair shot at getting permits, even if they had not necessarily pre-qualified through the prior application of the other criteria. That was covered in the debate.

The permit system will be operated by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, building on the existing vehicle operator licensing system, with which operators will already be familiar. The system will launch on 26 November to take applications for the ECMT multilateral annual permits, with permits subsequently being issued well ahead of exit day. There will be an application window for these permits, and a fee of £10 will be applicable for each permit requested. Successful applicants will be required to pay a fee of £123 ahead of being issued the permit. Those fee levels mean that there is no change in the cost of obtaining an ECMT permit.

The Trailer Registration Regulations 2018 will establish a regime for the registration of trailers used internationally to support our ratification of the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic. The ratification of the convention will allow us to issue international driving permits for all member states if a deal on mutual recognition of licences is not achieved. The convention will come into effect for the UK on 28 March 2019 and will apply irrespective of negotiations with the EU. Under the convention, trailers that weigh more than 750 kg are guaranteed access to foreign roads only if they are registered, so the registration of trailers is commonplace throughout much of continental Europe. This has been a source of disruption for UK trailers used on international routes.

The draft regulations will allow us to implement a registration regime for trailers that allows them to meet the standards outlined in the convention. Registration will be compulsory for trailers used for international journeys to or through a foreign country that has ratified the convention, if the trailer weighs more than 750 kg and is used for commercial purposes or weighs more than 3.5 tonnes and is used for any purpose. Use of unregistered trailers in those categories for journeys to continental Europe will be prohibited from 28 March.

The registration system will be operated by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and will let users register their trailers from January. This will allow approximately three months for trailer keepers to register before the prohibition on the use of unregistered trailers for international journeys comes into effect on 28 March. The fee for registration will be £26.

Hon. Members will be particularly interested in how the draft regulations will affect Northern Irish hauliers. The permits regulations will not require Northern Ireland hauliers to carry permits when on international journeys to or through Ireland. This is in keeping with the UK’s position in the 2018 Act that we will not introduce permits on the island of Ireland without the consent of the Government of Ireland. On trailer registration, Ireland has not ratified the 1968 Vienna convention, so no UK trailers will need to be registered to be used in Ireland.

Approval of the draft regulations is an important step in ensuring that the UK haulage industry is ready to keep goods moving after we leave the EU in March 2019. The sector is incredibly important to the wider UK economy and we are focused on delivering the measures necessary for it to continue to operate after we leave the EU. Our package of instruments will take concrete steps to enable us to offer greater clarity to industry about the requirements that will apply to international haulage in future. With particular regard to the permits regulations, we are clear on the negotiation objectives and are making good progress towards an agreement that delivers for the sector, but it is crucial that we make progress with the instruments, which prepare the UK both for our desired outcome and for the unlikely prospect of no deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Members for York Central and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for their contributions. Throughout the passage of the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 there was a valuable debate that allowed us to refine and improve the Act, and ensure that it laid out the framework necessary to deliver the objectives set for it, through these draft instruments. I am grateful once more for this opportunity to consider the detail of the legislation with Members and for their thoughtful and considered contributions.

The hon. Member for York Central acknowledged the value of the sector, for which I am grateful, and rightly highlighted the question of a cliff edge. I share her view and reassure her that we do not see any such cliff edge in this case.

The hon. Lady also asked about temporary exemptions. It is inevitable in a scheme of this kind that there might be a need to cater for emergencies or other special needs that we expect infrequently. It is important to include a provision that caters for all eventualities, and that is what the language of special exemption allows us to do.

The hon. Lady asked whether we will be in the Community licence in future. As she knows, as we have discussed and as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will also be aware, that is subject to negotiation. We have always been clear, including when the Bill was going through the House and in discussions about other statutory instruments, that we intend to maintain existing access but, of course, there are different ways to do that. There can be permits under the ECMT scheme or under a permitting arrangement, or liberal access bilaterally as well as liberalised collective access. There are different ways to ensure that possibility.

[Rachael Maskell]

Have specific representations been made to the Prime Minister and others leading the negotiation to ensure that we remain part of the Community licence scheme?

[Jesse Norman]

Representations of every kind are made continuously. The goal of the Government has always been that we should seek liberalised access for our hauliers and we believe that we will.

The hon. Lady also asked about random selection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Gentleman has had quite enough opportunity to make a comment, given the brief time he has spent in the Committee Room. The hon. Member for York Central, who has been here and has, in contrast to the hon. Gentleman, taken an energetic and careful approach throughout the passage of the legislation, is right to raise the question of criteria and I am happy to respond.

As the hon. Lady will know, the Government published in time for this Committee a detailed explanation of how the different criteria would play out. “Guidance on Determining Permit Allocations” sets out the different criteria and the rationale for them, including all the criteria she has mentioned. It also addresses the question why an element of random selection is being used. The reason is that we wish to maximise the benefits to the UK economy. We do not wish to cut out smaller organisations, smaller hauliers, that might be excluded by a focus purely on intensity of use, proportion of international trade and the like. This provision allows a wider and more extensive use of permits, and we think that that is in the interests of the industry and of hauliers more generally.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is a very negative indication to business to say that we will randomly determine whether to award a permit. Business needs security. That has been the big cry of business for the past two and a half years. To then say, “Well, you may plan your business ventures, but we will not provide any certainty about whether you can access the permit scheme,” seems an incredibly random decision by Government in itself, leaving aside the impact that it will have on the economy. If, as the Minister has said, there is a focus and small businesses are able to access the scheme, will he make that absolutely clear?

[Jesse Norman]

That is clear in the “Guidance on Determining Permit Allocations”, and we have said all the way through that the point of including an element of random selection is to allow the benefits of a wider dispersion of permits to be felt. If we scored purely by intensity of use and/or proportion of international business, that would mean that a few hauliers might—in many cases, almost certainly would—get either all or none of the permits for which they applied. We think that that would be uncompetitive and unfair, so we have included this element. Of course, it applies only once all the existing criteria have been applied, so it is not a structuring principle from the outset of the way in which the permits are allocated.

The hon. Lady also asked why there is no appeal process. She will be aware that allocation is an automated process; there is no human discretion associated with it. It is not like a jury trial, where some judgment element might be applied in the application of the criteria. Therefore, to have an element of appeal would be to undermine the thrust of the policy and to cut against the principle that these things are automatically generated. But of course, as we have already indicated, we believe that there will be plenty of scope for existing operators to get permits, even if they do not get ECMT permits.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. May I just try to bring some clarity to what he has said? He said earlier that discretion will be exercised over these draft regulations in relation to small businesses being able to access the scheme. That would require human intervention, but he is now saying that there will be no human intervention. Which is it?

[Jesse Norman]

That is an ingenious but verbal distinction. In this case, there may be circumstances in which emergency loads need to be carried, and the Secretary of State has the discretion afforded under this legislation to allow him—or, in due course, possibly her—to make an allocation on that basis. That is in exceptional circumstances; we expect that provision to be rarely used. In the application process for permits as they stand, it is an automated matter, using the criteria that we have described and set out, very helpfully in detail, in the “Guidance on Determining Permit Allocations”.

Let me turn now to the issue of trailer safety, which the hon. Lady has rightly raised.

[Jesse Norman]

These measures have been very widely published. The hauliers’ associations are very well briefed on the matter. How freight will continue after 29 March has been a topic of national discussion and interest. Therefore, we expect people to be very well briefed. I will also keep the matter under review, but we certainly expect people who are potentially at risk because they have to take international journeys or make international transfers to be aware of these rules and to act on them.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister has not responded to my request for clarity about road haulage permits with regard to Northern Ireland. We are talking about free flow throughout Ireland, north and south, and I asked specifically if that means that there will now be a border created in the Irish sea, because the framing of the draft regulations certainly leans towards that.

[Jesse Norman]

No, I do not think that is true at all. Both sets of draft regulations obey the principle agreed between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister that there should be no barriers in travelling between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and all sides are committed to that. The draft regulations do not create a permit regime or hard border on the island and that fits with our overall view, which is that trade and everyday movements across the border should be able to continue as they are. There is no extant bilateral agreement between the UK and Ireland for road haulage. The UK Government are confident of being able to reach any agreement required at that time.

Let me pick up the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. Further to the question of communication, it is worth stating that the Government are shortly going to undertake an extensive communication campaign, precisely in order to allow hauliers to understand the issue. Guidance has been prepared, with the input of the industry, in order to allow those messages firmly to be heard. That campaign is already under way and we expect it to escalate still further.

On the issue of trailer permits, the hon. Lady the Member for York Central asked about safety. We are continuing to work on the safety review. It is a very important issue. I have travelled to Bristol to talk to the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who has taken a pioneering approach to this matter in the Commons, and we have discussed it extensively in prior Committee sittings. As the debate highlights, this is a complex matter and we have to be careful about how we proceed with it.

The hon. Member for York Central asked about the set-up versus running costs of the trailer registration scheme. Set-up costs have been covered by the Government, as we have discussed already. The running costs are being run on a cost-recovery basis, but hauliers will need to buy registration plates according to the costs and fees already indicated. Permits will be available under the regulations in whatever format is available. On haulage, ECMT permits are paper permits, under the ECMT agreement, but we are able to offer other potential sources of access if people wish to have them.

The hon. Lady also asked about DVSA staffing. She will have detected that the impact assessments are very modest for that—the impact on the industry is a few hundreds of thousands of pounds. DVSA is well advanced in preparing for a permit scheme and we do not anticipate that to be a material concern.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister is talking about staffing, which, obviously, means people’s jobs. If either of these sets of draft regulations is not required, will people be laid off? What will happen to them, and what about refunds for people who have made applications for permits and licensing?

[Jesse Norman]

The people who have made applications for permits have essentially bought insurance in advance against the possibility that they will have to have a bilateral agreement. To that extent, they have been advantaged and we are not proposing to offer refunds to them. DVSA staffing is a matter for the DVSA itself.

These instruments represent an important stage as the Government progress with plans for leaving the European Union. Our negotiating position with the EU has been clear as we strive to achieve a deal with reciprocal arrangements that work for the industry. It should be evident that we are putting in place solid preparations for a range of outcomes, including the unlikely event of no deal.

Question put.

Draft Department For Transport (Fees) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Monday 22nd October 2018 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the two hon. Members for their contributions. I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for York Central on many of the questions that she raised. I take the point eloquently made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk as appropriately rhetorical, in flagging the potential efforts to which officials and Ministers have gone in ensuring that we will be properly protected in the event of EU exit.

I remind the Committee of the extremely modest length of this piece of secondary legislation. There are a very small number of changes, which are, broadly speaking, to remove references to EU obligations and to repose in the Secretary of State some powers that presently lie with the EU. That is in line with the general principle of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which is to relocate within UK law powers that presently operate under EU law.

The hon. Member for York Central asked why there had been no consultation on the order. The reason for that was delicately alluded to by the Chairman when he reminded us of the proceeding’s scope. The regulations do not set fees; they only govern what considerations the Secretary of State can take into account in any setting of fees. As I said, fees themselves cannot be changed, except with a staged process that requires the agreement of the Treasury, a consultation with representative organisations that are affected and a consideration of the impact upon stakeholders. There has been no consultation on the order because it has no such impact. All it does is relocate laws from one jurisdiction to another.

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Jesse Norman]

If I may, I will just finish what I am saying and then the hon. Lady can make further comments.

If there were any possible changes to fees, they would arise out of substantive Acts, rather than the scope that is demarcated by this purely formal change of location of powers. If that were to occur and there were some possibility that fees would have to go up, we would follow the process described, which would involve a consultation in the way the hon. Lady described. That answers her second question, which related to divergence, and her third question, which related to the cost of providing any functions. One cannot predict whether the functions cost would go up or down, but that is immaterial to these regulations, which bear on the considerations that the Secretary of State is entitled to take into account and were formerly taken into account under EU law.

The hon. Lady asked what discussions have taken place with agencies. Of course, discussions routinely take place between Ministers and agencies on a variety of things. In this case the agencies are aware of this change of law, but it is not—I repeat—a matter of changing the substance of any actual fees. Therefore, those conversations do not need to touch on anything other than the formal change that has been described.

The hon. Lady asked whether this will be used as a revenue stream after withdrawal from the EU. Fees are not used as a revenue stream. The whole point of this is to recover the costs associated with the activities in question. There is no revenue stream, in that sense, to be derived.

The hon. Lady said, “As the economy sinks into crisis.” I am afraid that her flair for rhetoric is getting the better of her. So far the economy is discounting any crisis—it continues to grow robustly and no one is expecting anything on that account. She then referred to a series of other matters that have been amply covered in discussions on the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill, with several points raised in Committee and before the House. I refer her to those discussions.

Question put and agreed to.

Stonehenge: Proposed Road Alterations

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

May I say on behalf of us all, Sir Graham, how brilliantly you have chaired today’s proceedings with your normal aplomb and energy?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on securing the debate and on his excellent contribution. I was interested to learn that in his previous lives he has frolicked around the stones—I am sure not defacing but enjoying them, and I hope not breathing too close to the road—celebrating his druidical background. As such an erudite and scholarly man, he is a great adornment to the Commons. He has brought that bookish sentiment to this debate. If I may mis-quote John Osborne, with the current Member, there is no “book lack in Ongar”. I will allow the Chamber to enjoy that.

My hon. Friend quoted those famous experts in the area, Spın̈al Tap. It would be wrong of me not to remind him of this important moment in the lyrics of “Stonehenge”, as he will recall from the film:

“Stonehenge! Where the demons dwell

Where the banshees live and they do live well

Stonehenge! Where a man’s a man

And the children dance to the Pipes of Pan.”

Unfortunately, as matters stand, the children will not be able to dance, because they will probably get run over, and in any case they would not be able to hear the pipes because of the noise of a road travelling so close to the ancient ruins.

To engage with the point made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), I thought her phrase the “undiscovered past” was a brilliant one and perfectly captured the proper concern that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar framed. She was right to draw attention to air quality and the community-use aspects of the site. Her joy in cycling, I am pleased to say, will be enabled and furthered by the greenways planned as part of the renewal of the site, alongside the removal of the A303. I must, however, put it on the record that I am very surprised and, frankly, sorry that the Labour party’s position is not to support the project. [Interruption.] I invite the hon. Lady to correct me. If the Labour party is ready to support the project, she is absolutely welcome to intervene and say that it will.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have made it very clear that we need to ensure that we have done absolutely everything possible to preserve the site. As I said, I was looking forward to the Minister’s speech to convince me that that is the case.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful for that clarification—if it was one—so let me say this. If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene before I finish to say that I have given her such assurances, that will reassure the many people in Exeter and Plymouth who might be worried about whether the Labour party supports the project.

Let me frame the proposals in their wider context. As hon. Members know, the A303 is the most direct strategic route between the south-west and the south-east and indeed the east of England. That makes it a vital arterial corridor, as has been noted throughout the Chamber during this debate. Several sections of the road, however, are single carriageway, causing congestion, delays and greater risk of accidents.

Would it were the case that only a visit from a serving President of the United States of America was required to interrupt the traffic and cause congestion. Tragically, as has been pointed out, congestion is absolutely an everyday feature—I visited the stones recently and sat in a traffic jam. The experience is a rotten one for all involved, awful for the site and not good for the stones themselves. Those points are sometimes forgotten.

One of the congestion points is precisely at Stonehenge. The distance of the road from the stones when it passes near them is 165 metres, or less than 200 yards, which is an astonishing fact. The sight, smells and sound of stationary traffic are brought directly into the centre of a unique prehistoric environment. That is bad for road users and local communities, while a world heritage site is cut in half and the setting of that iconic landmark is harmed. After many delays and many years of prevarication, therefore, the Government have decided that we need to take the chance to enhance the setting of such an extraordinary monument and to improve access to the surrounding landscape, while opening the south-west for further tourism and other business.

In the 2014 road investment strategy, the Government committed to a scheme at Stonehenge, and we are following through on that. The project is part of a longer-term strategy to create better links between the M3 in the south-east and the M5 in the south-west by upgrading the entire A303-A358 corridor to dual-carriageway A-road standard, thereby transforming it into a continuous high-quality route to the south-west, with significant benefits for tourism, jobs and the economy. As the House knows, we have already committed funding to three schemes: Stonehenge; the Sparkford to Ilchester stretch; and Taunton to the Southfields roundabout. The hope is to commit to the full upgrade of five other sections of road along that corridor in ensuing investment strategies.

The A303 and the Stonehenge site suffer significant congestion because of additional traffic. Given how little time I have remaining—I think only two minutes—I shall cut straight to some of the key points. The proposed road alterations include a twin-bore tunnel of at least 1.8 miles in length and other features mentioned today, such as the Longbarrow and Countess junctions. Both the Department for Transport and Highways England very much appreciate that the world heritage site contains an abundance of early prehistoric monuments. They are committed to minimising the impacts of the planned scheme. The heritage monitoring and advisory group, which includes a range of prestigious organisations, provides advice to ensure that heritage is at the fore of scheme design decisions, advising on archaeological surveys and the like. The scientific committee has directly influenced the scope of the archaeological evaluation strategy adopted for the scheme.

On Blick Mead, Highways England is carrying out an extensive heritage impact assessment to ensure that the scheme does not create unacceptable effects for important heritage features. It must be pointed out that Blick Mead is a full half-mile from the proposed entrance to the tunnel. The proposed use of a tunnel-boring machine means that the tunnel will be constructed in a sealed and watertight environment. There are a range of other mitigations and a great deal of work being done on the water table and the hydrology, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar knows. The Star Carr site is in many ways not a relevant comparison, although it may serve as a warning, precisely because it was the victim of ill-thought-through land drains and acidification of the site, which I am afraid reduce its value as a comparator.

To round up, there will always be trade-offs of incommensurables of the kind that we have seen—between the history and value of a site, the economic, community and air-quality benefits to be had from it, and the like. The nature of politics is that we have to make such trade-offs, but only of course with the most careful expert advice and scrutiny, for the minimisation of the impacts, as we have discussed. In this case, we must be philosophers in practice. I would like to think that the Government have done everything that they can to strike the right balance along the lines that I have described.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

There is guidance on this already, as my hon. Friend will know. I am not sure whether it is reflected in the road safety statistics, but I am happy to look at that.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Owing to the sheer scale of the damage the proposed A27 project will do to ancient woodland and the South Downs national park, let alone the eventual impact on air pollution caused by induced capacity, 10 of Britain’s leading environmental groups have written to the Secretary of State to highlight how his proposals contravene his own national policy statement for national networks. So has he changed his definition of “irreversible damage” or will he urgently review this scheme?

[Jesse Norman]

As the hon. Lady will know, many of those ancient woodlands were planted only in the past couple of decades, so I am not sure that she has quite made her point.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will address this point later, but as the police gather data around the causation of accidents, is it not right that they should also record whether or not causation is related to the towing equipment of a vehicle?

[Jesse Norman]

It is certainly true that police gather information on factors that may bear on causation—of course, causation itself is a judgment rather than a fact. The case for recording such data is under active consideration, but we are concerned about the balance between the amount of potential infraction and the good that it would do by creating an additional burden in an already very full assessment process. That is precisely one of the things that would come out of the wider assessment we are doing now, and is therefore of a piece with the direction of travel of the Government. We recognise that this is an important issue: I have asked officials to consider in the safety report what data may inform further investigation, and this may cover exactly the points raised by the hon. Lady.

The vehicle defect contributory factor is a useful starting point, which is already in the report. Relevant case studies may allow us to explore within that category the question of tow bar safety. Tow bars are clearly integral elements when taking a full picture of the trailer safety situation, and it is correct that they are considered in the report, although I hope, for the reasons outlined, that the hon. Member for Bristol South will not press her amendment.

The hon. Member for York Central has tabled amendment (b) to new clause 1 to outline with greater clarity that the report will cover both commercial and non-commercial trailers. To assuage any concerns that hon. Members may have about the scope of the report, it is important to say that the current drafting covers all accidents involving trailers in Great Britain, without distinction between commercial and non-commercial usage. Those terms are not actually defined in the Bill and may be shaped by the consultation, so it would be premature to insert that requirement. There is no trailer weight category excluded from the trailer safety report, so making the amendment would not change any of the requirements on the Secretary of State set out in new clause 1. I hope the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.

Under amendment (d) to new clause 1, the Secretary of State would be required, for each year following the first report, to lay subsequent annual reports on trailer safety, compulsory registration and periodic testing. The first report will provide a valuable opportunity to consider trailer safety in depth and, as I have said, will draw on recent data recorded under existing recording systems. We also wish to consider how else we can bring in additional data or contributions from industry stakeholders, to ensure that we consider the full breadth of issues relevant to trailer safety, but at this stage I do not deem it appropriate to make a commitment to further reports without knowing the outcome of the first report. Either way, the effect of this amendment would be to place a costly requirement on the Government, which is not necessarily warranted unless the first report turns out as feared. None the less, I am happy to consider the need for further reports based on an initial assessment of the overall waterfront, which the first report is designed to do. If the report recommends further registration and testing of trailers, that will take considerable time to implement, and it is important to be aware of that. Equally, if an extension of registration and testing is not recommended, an immediate further report may well offer no additional value.

The parliamentary debate has been valuable and considered. As my noble Friend Baroness Sugg said, we have considered extensively trailer safety and what more Government can and should be doing. That underlined my commitment to undertake a report on trailer safety. The process will allow us to consider how to take this matter forward, but I hope the hon. Member for York Central will be minded to await the initial report before making further commitments as to how this issue is best addressed.

I have gone through this quite thoroughly, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for the way he outlined new clause 1 and responded to the many amendments before us on trailer safety. I would like to speak to many of those amendments, and indeed an amendment to an amendment.

First of all, may I welcome the progress made in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Tunnicliffe? His contribution particularly focused on trailer safety, and it is right that we acknowledge that, as well as the contribution made by Baroness Sugg to the progress leading us to new clause 1. It is clear that we will be supportive of the new clause, because we believe it is an improvement on the substantive Bill.

In making such provision for the inclusion of more trailers, should the evidence point to more trailers needing registering to keep the public safe, regulation should be brought forward. It has been welcome to hear that the Minister will be making those considerations once the report has been put together, but in response to his speech, I want to question how he envisages building up a more robust database. He refers to, in the time period allowed, not going to the depths of all the sources that could be available for formulating such a report, so it would be good to know how he plans to proceed. My amendment (aa), which seeks to have further reporting, could be a source of addressing a more in-depth study.

We could not have been more moved by the speech made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Of course, we all know of her tireless and tenacious campaigning to improve trailer safety following the tragic death of young Freddie Hussey. Just three years old, his life was taken by a trailer that was out of control—a trailer that was only 2 tonnes in weight, that lost connection and then moved forward to failure, due to the position of the handbrake on the trailer. That demonstrates how important it is that we look at the detail of trailer safety and design fault, as well as operator poor use and malfunction. I trust that in the report, we will be able to look at those fine details, because that will be informative for the Minister in determining the best mechanisms to reduce risk on our roads. Ultimately, this is what I believe new clause 1 is trying to achieve: a real understanding of the risks that are presented and the nature of the faults, and therefore what measures can be taken to improve public safety.

Other safety features could also be included—for instance, tyre safety. We certainly know that incidents—some of them tragic—have occurred as a result of the ageing of tyres, and the Minister may want to consider bringing that under regulation and going further than just trailers. We also need to make sure that the work is comprehensive, so looking at weight limits could be an important consideration. I appreciate that we are looking at commercial and non-commercial trailers; I made the point earlier that the ownership of a trailer should not make a difference to the risk. We need to ensure that that is comprehensive. It may be that the data and the evidence show that 750 kg is not the right weight limitation. We need to keep an open mind and trust the reporting of incidents when considering that.

I will ask what I believe is quite a simple question on the changing jurisdiction. The Bill sets out that reporting will be for the UK, but the new clause talks about England, Wales and Scotland. What has happened to Northern Ireland? Will the Minister consider separate data for Northern Ireland, which I appreciate will probably be under a different jurisdiction? Will he take that into account, or was the new clause a tidying-up measure to remove Northern Ireland from the data sources?

My amendment (aa) is to amendment (a) to new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South and is incredibly important. It would provide for monitoring incidents and ensuring that we create a culture of the highest standards. While many trailers are privately constructed, it is important that they are built to the highest safety standards and subject to inspection. The Minister’s comment on the scale of this and how we can bring in inspection regimes was interesting. The offer of free tow bar checks from the leadership of the National Trailer and Towing Association, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham set out on Second Reading, is certainly a progressive step that could well address the question that the Minister posed in his opening remarks.

We need to ensure that trailers, whether for heavy duty or occasional use, are up to standard, and therefore a one-off test may not address the issue. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham gave evidence of that when talking about the corrosion of trailers. We need to understand more about the lifecycle of trailers to ensure that safety is adhered to. Amendment (a) seeks to ensure that the report considers the construction, condition and safety of all trailers.

My amendment (b) to new clause 1 considers a point that the Minister addressed in his remarks on commercial and non-commercial trailers. As I have said, the risk seems to occur across the board, but we should look at recording the distinction between commercial and non-commercial trailers, because there may be a higher propensity in the non-commercial field, for example, of the attachment of trailers to create a higher risk, because the full operation of locking down that attachment may not be as efficient as when done by people who do it every day as part of their work. We therefore need to look at the distinction across the board to identify where risk sits in the system, and gathering data on that would be invaluable.

My amendment (c) to new clause 1 looks at the reporting of road traffic accidents, which the Minister referred to earlier. I believe that the police gather comprehensive data on accidents, and directly correlating or associating those with a trailer incident will be invaluable in understanding the risks created by trailers. The amendment would be an important inclusion in the Bill. We are not asking for additional work to be done, just for inclusion in the Minister’s report. I hope that he will consider that further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

One great benefit of the Bill is that it has brought into the foreground a set of issues. It is the beginning of a conversation and a process of reflection that the Government need to have, and it will go well beyond the Bill itself. One can imagine what the different elements of that would be. The first might be education and public awareness, the next stage might be specific intervention, and so on all the way up the tree. I would not rule any of that out—it is just a matter of understanding the basis on which we operate.

In a way, it is a cautionary tale. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned tyre safety, which is another serious issue. She will know that Frances Molloy has campaigned in a very admirable way, having had a bereavement that was just as devastating in its own way as that of Donna and Scott Hussey. The view she has taken is that all tyres over 10 years old should be banned. In fact, in answer to her original campaign, the Department set out in guidance that no tyre aged over 10 years old should be fitted to the front steering axle of a bus. The effect has been remarkable and transformative in that we have seen very little infringement. We have tried on two previous occasions to commission what we considered to be an evidentially robust means of investigation. I am pleased to say that, after several years of trying and failing, we now have a process in mind. That is an example of how one can do an awful lot in advance as part of the process of evidence-gathering—that is what we are trying to do in the context of the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

I concur with the Minister on the need for good inspection regimes, whether that is applied to tyre safety, tow bars or trailers. Will he therefore look at what the tow bar industry is doing with regard to the free inspections it is offering the public? Perhaps the Government should support that while looking at the wider issue of trailer safety.

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that. At the trailer summit, I had a chance to talk to the people running the programme, but there is no doubt that we can do more.

The hon. Lady rightly mentioned a range of issues that might have a bearing on this—design fault, operator misuse or the safety of the equipment. All those factors need to be included in the comprehensive consideration I have described. I have said that we expect that to include more data and sources. The vehicle defect category may offer more scope for enlargement if we want to gather more data. She has rightly stressed having an open mind, which is very much what I bring.

We want to involve an expert consideration with stakeholders as part of our reflection. I have found that enormously helpful in other aspects of my portfolio—walking, cycling or road safety—but it is an integral part of the discussion. When we are trying to bring an amorphous body of data under control, it is important to include case studies, which we can do. I hope therefore that what we achieve will be genuinely rich and satisfying, and provide the basis for proper further consideration and, if necessary, action.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I have a series of questions for the Minister, rather than a speech. Could he give clarity on who is responsible for the periodic testing of trailers and the resources? Will he consider including tow bars or tow hitches in new clause 2, subsection (1), which states:

“Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers”?

I have to apologise—I thought consideration of the Bill would last for four more sittings. Otherwise, I would have tabled amendments to that effect. It would be gracious of the Minister to comment on that.

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to colleagues. If a testing regime is to be introduced, the Department will decide what the best way of doing that is. I anticipate that it would be done through an extension of work that has already been commissioned by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and other relevant authorities.

Foreign trailers on our roads will be expected to obey the laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the same way that any other trailer would. They will be subject to the applicable law. I want to be sure that I have caught the question that the hon. Member for York Central raised.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Minister. We are looking not just at the trailers we produce ourselves, but at the use of trailers no matter where they come from. Depending on which jurisdiction they enter our roads from, they could carry risk. If tow bars are not fitted correctly, if the attachment is not locked down, or if the driver is driving carelessly, they pose a risk to the British public. How will the Minister respond to that?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying the point. The answer is, of course, that laws will apply to those trailers just as they would to domestic trailers. However, she rightly raises a wider point. Whether there is a difference in the assessment of trailers brought in from other countries—they may be subject to different regulatory rules—could well be considered in the wider trailer safety report. The report could also consider whether EU standards, or those of other countries, are doing the job we expect them to do. Hopefully that covers all the questions.

[Jesse Norman]

I cannot take that as a formal amendment, but I will certainly give the matter consideration.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 23

Regulations

Amendment made: 5, in clause 23, page 13, line 35, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A statutory instrument containing any of the following (with or without other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—

(a) the first regulations under section 1;

(b) the first regulations under section 2;

(c) the first regulations under section 13;

(d) the first regulations under section 18;

(e) the first regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations);

(f) other regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) which amend an Act.”—(Jesse Norman.)

This amendment requires the first regulations for periodic testing of trailers (see NC2), and any later regulations which amend an Act, to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Extent

Amendment made: 6, in clause 24, page 14, line 8, leave out “Section 11 extends” and insert—

“Sections 11, (Trailer safety: report) and (Trailer safety: testing regulations) extend”.—(Jesse Norman.)

This amendment provides that the new clauses about trailer safety (see NC1 and NC2) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Commencement and transitional provision

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 25, page 14, line 16, at end insert—

“(1) Where as an outcome of the negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom remains in the European Union’s Community Licence regime, sections 1, 2 and 3 will cease to have effect.”.

This amendment would mean that the powers set out in section 1, 2 or 3 would not be available to the Secretary of State where the UK remains in the European Union’s Community Licence Regime.

We have made excellent progress on the Bill this afternoon. In tabling this amendment, Labour was seeking assurances about what we do should we find that the legislation is not necessary. We believe that inserting a sunset clause would be a helpful way of tidying up that element of business. As we have learned from today’s debate, there are still a huge number of uncertainties about the future management of the Bill in the light of the negotiations taking place about the future, not least in relation to the community licensing scheme, which we trust that the Government will seek to be a part of as we move forward. In the light of our discussions and the greater clarity from the Minister today, we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Short title

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. She raises several issues, which I am happy to address. The first relates to the different scenarios that hauliers would be operating under and the second to the nature of documentation and, potentially, electronic documentation or its equivalent. There is some lack of clarity that it is important to dispel here—I am not sure whether it exists in the industry. Let us be clear: this is a Bill that applies to UK hauliers. A foreign haulier with a vehicle coming into the UK will be bound by other legislation linked to foreign hauliers, but they will not be affected by the Bill. The effect of that is that in the first scenario the hon. Lady describes, a UK haulier with a load that starts in Spain and goes into the Republic of Ireland and then into Northern Ireland would require a permit if there were an agreement between the two sides—Ireland and the UK. However, there is no such agreement.

The clause provides an enabling power because current and future international agreements are all different and we need flexibility to require permits only when international agreements so require. It allows for different exceptions. In the case of the island of Ireland, permits would be required for journeys only if there were an agreement between the UK and Irish Governments to have them. It has already been made clear that no permit regime or hard border on the island of Ireland will be created by this Bill. The issue will, therefore, not arise. If they are coming into the UK under a permit scheme from a foreign haulier, that will not apply in the same way.

[Rachael Maskell]

Is the Minister saying that hauliers in the Republic of Ireland who will then be bringing their load to England, Scotland and Wales will need to carry a permit?

[Jesse Norman]

If there were a permit scheme in place between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, then a permit would need to be carried. If not, then it would not. There is no such permit scheme in place.

[Rachael Maskell]

I appreciate the Minister’s response, which clearly shows that there could be a creation of borders that are built. Would he therefore explain how permits will be inspected? That seems to be fundamental for haulage flow and traffic flow.

[Jesse Norman]

I am not quite sure why there is a lack of clarity. Borders are not the same thing as permits. At the moment we have frictionless trade with the EU, and we have mechanisms for inspecting lorries through the DVSA which are nowhere near the border, and have no impact at all on the flow of traffic or freight across borders. There should be no reason in principle why this should be different.

[Rachael Maskell]

I will ask again: will the Minister say how that inspection is different? This is about having a right to move haulage across the borders, and therefore it is about understanding how that inspection will take place. It is a different form of inspection to the one referred to by the Minister.

[Jesse Norman]

It really is not. The hon. Lady might not be clear, so let me say this again. At the moment there will be no transport checks at borders, and we have been perfectly clear about that. This does not change that at all; on the contrary. I could not be clearer. There are going to be no transport checks at borders. Under current arrangements, the community licence is a paper document that hauliers are required to carry in their vehicles and to show to inspectors on request. If we were to move to a paper copy permits arrangement as described, nothing would fundamentally change in that process. There are benefits to digital documents, and we do not disagree with that. The Bill allows scope for a shift to digital documentation in the future. Clause 1 states that the

“permit can be in any form the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

but the system put in place is a pragmatic solution that fully follows the current lines of the community licence regime, and should raise no further questions in people’s minds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

What we have said that there will be no transport checks at borders. We do check transport. I have been out on patrol with the DVSA, and a very effective job it does too of pulling over truckers and checking whether their documentation is in order on a whole variety of different grounds, including compliance with the community licence. That is the difference, and that is the distinction we wish to draw and that it is important to make.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Number and allocation of permits etc

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 38, after “criteria”, insert

“, including compliance with emissions standards,”.

This amendment would explicitly include compliance with emissions standards as a criterion the Secretary of State may use in determining whether to grant an application for a permit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

The consultation is on the class of the lorries being used. If the consultation comes out in favour of an issue having some weight, the Government will look harder at what weight it should have, and will do precisely what has been contemplated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, namely balance it against potential unintended consequences. My right hon. Friend was pointing out that to legislate at this point would be to invite those unintended consequences, because it would lack the further scrutiny and balancing that a consultation is designed to give.

The Bill already gives the power to use a range of criteria, including compliance with emissions standards. It does not need to be included in the Bill for us to use that criterion. It is important that primary powers give flexibility to the criteria and allow for them to be amended in future. We intend to include those criteria in regulations, which will, of course, themselves be debated by Parliament and be subject to approval in both Houses.

We also wish—as no doubt future Governments will wish—to be able to change the criteria to make improvements to the scheme or as there are evolutionary changes in the industry. It is reasonable to include such detail in secondary legislation, which would allow those changes to be made more easily. I absolutely support the intention behind the amendment, in so far as it is to ensure that our haulage sector minimises emissions and complies with high environmental standards, but the amendment is not required to achieve that and I hope the hon. Lady will not press it.

Amendment 7, also tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, proposes removing the reference to

“first come, first served or an element of random selection”.

She asked how that would operate. It is important that those references remain in the Bill, not only because they deal with the more difficult situation, where there is a limited number of permits, but because they allow us to allocate permits in the “normal” manner, where there is no limit on permit numbers.

Let me look at the idea of first come, first served, in response to the hon. Lady. Our existing permits schemes are undersubscribed—it is very important to be aware of that—so applicants have always received what they have applied for. In 2017, for example, we issued 66 permits for Ukraine from a quota of 400. For Georgia, we issued six permits from a quota of 100. Permits are issued on demand, and in those cases it makes sense to issue permits as applications are received—that is to say, on a first come, first served basis.

In the future, where more permits may be available than are applied for, permits can be issued to all available applicants. The current drafting, with the reference to first come, first served, ensures that the Secretary of State clearly has the power to provide in regulations that permits may be allocated on that basis, and that no other factors are required to be taken into consideration.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the surplus number of permits, but if we faced a scenario where there was increased demand on the number of permits—of course, we are entering a new scenario here—why would a cap be put on the number of permits available?

[Jesse Norman]

It entirely depends on whatever permit regime may be in place. It may well be an entirely liberalised one, with an enormous number of permits available, that therefore does not apply a cap—or it may not, as agreed.

[Rachael Maskell]

Following through on that logic, why even stipulate that it needs to be on a first come, first served basis? If applicants reach the set criteria to warrant having a permit, surely that should be the basis on which a permit is awarded.

[Jesse Norman]

I am struggling to make myself clear. I have just gone through a case where there are more permits available than the numbers demanded. Under those circumstances, it makes every sense for the Secretary of State to have a clear power to allocate on a first come, first served basis.

[Rachael Maskell]

indicated dissent.

[Jesse Norman]

I will come on to other circumstances later, if I am able to proceed, but there is no doubt that that clarity is of value, and that is the clarity that the Bill affords.

This is clearly a more simple process, both for Government and for hauliers. It would mean that hauliers would not be asked for as much information, and that additional criteria would not need to be applied. It would therefore keep the process as simple as possible. I will give detail on other cases later.

Moving on to random selection, the Bill enables regulations to be made that provide for how the Secretary of State is to decide whether a permit should be granted. Such provision may include specifying criteria or other selection methods, including an element of random selection. If the demand for permits exceeds their supply, we will look to allocate them in a way that maximises benefits to the UK economy, and that is fair and equitable to hauliers. We have made that perfectly clear, and it was repeated on Second Reading. We will set out criteria in regulations, and the Secretary of State will provide guidance relating to the information that applicants must provide in their applications.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the Minister for talking through how he sees the system operating. I still question what happens on a first come, first served basis to people at the end of the queue, in the worst-case scenario. Would they still warrant a permit? Also, the Minister used the word “random”. It seems a rather unplanned way of looking at the aspirations for our economy. Does the Minister agree that that is perhaps not the right word for the Bill?

[Jesse Norman]

The word “random” is a technical way of describing a mode of allocation. I do not think that it is not the right word; I think it may well be the correct word. The hon. Lady may take it in some folk sense of the word “random”, but that is not what is intended in the Bill. Let me proceed, and I will address the question that has been raised as we continue.

We are consulting on the criteria and methods to be used for allocating permits. Those criteria and methods will be included in regulations, and could include relevant factors such as the need for an applicant to hold a valid operator’s licence, the environmental standard of the vehicle organised to be used, as I have described, or the sector in which an applicant operates.

There may be cases, however, in which the application of such criteria does not enable the Secretary of State to allocate all the permits. It is therefore necessary for other methods of selection to be available. It is important to remind the Committee that we have said that we will look to allocate the permits in a way that maximises the benefits to the UK economy, and that is fair and equitable to hauliers. Those are the governing principles behind the assessment of the criteria.

[Rachael Maskell]

Could the Minister explain why the words that he has just used about the importance of our economy are not in the Bill, as opposed to the phrase “random selection”? Surely that is what the permits system is all about.

[Jesse Norman]

The Bill contains a framework by which permits are to be allocated. Maximising the benefits to the UK economy and making that framework fair and equitable to hauliers are overriding principles behind the legislation, as I pointed out on Second Reading. The Government have been quite clear about that. We have listened to the concerns raised in the other place that all permits might be allocated randomly and that getting a permit would be purely a matter of chance. That is not the case. Where random selection is used, it will not be used on its own without any other criteria being applied.

Although we expect some of the provisions in the Bill not to be necessary, we are under a duty to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations that allow a range of outcomes to be realised. We have made explicit mention of “first come, first served” and “random selection” in the Bill in order to make it clear that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations that include such provision. Given that there may be circumstances in which “first come, first served” or an element of “random selection” are required, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State’s powers to be spelled out clearly in the Bill, which will ensure that there is no doubt that those powers are available to him or her and provide transparency about what may be included in the regulations.

We have aimed to be open about the potential use of those methods and I have sought to set out the circumstances in which we envisage they may be used. To limit the powers would limit the ability to operate a permit scheme that works to the benefit of hauliers. We will consider all the responses to the consultation before bringing regulations forward, so that the criteria and methods we are using are suitable, and the regulations will be subject to debate and approval by both Houses, but we want to ensure that the Bill enables regulations to be made that address scenarios in which the application of criteria needs to be supplemented by other methods of selection. I hope that the detail I have set out allays fears about how they may be used and that the hon. Member for York Central feels content not to press her amendment.

Government amendment 1 will ensure that the Bill allows flexibility for whatever permit scheme we may have in future. It will allow the Secretary of State to issue permits in cases where the criteria prescribed in regulations may not be suitable. On Second Reading, hon. Members raised the issue of music tours and their hauliers not being able to travel internationally. That is a good example of an industry where a one-size-fits-all permit scheme may have some unintended consequences. Applying a single set of criteria to everyone might mean that some who are providing a highly valuable service with wider economic benefits are particularly disadvantaged. Amendment 1 will allow specific steps to be taken to mitigate that effect.

The Bill currently allows a number of permits to be available for a class of applicants, although the variety of situations in which those permits could be used is varied and often unforeseen. It might help the Committee if I give some examples. Let us take, for example, the case of an emergency where hauliers could not have foreseen the need to obtain a permit. In such a case, amendment 1 will allow permits to be issued to deal with those emergencies. That could be, for example, where there is a need to move fuel for energy supply, or to move medicines. There are also circumstances in which a haulier might be looking to move goods that are particularly important to the economy, perhaps with one-off, unusual loads, such as aeroplane parts, large turbines or the like. We want businesses to be able to move their goods, especially where there is a much wider economic benefit from that haulage.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister explain to the Committee why he is seeking temporary exemptions from the permit scheme, as opposed to emergency permits being issued to address the scenarios he has outlined?

[Jesse Norman]

We have taken the view that exemptions are the simplest and cleanest way to handle the cases we are talking about. Of course, some cases will be emergencies, but there might be circumstances that are not emergencies at all. I have described some examples, such as the movement of aeroplane parts, that would fall into that category. There are other cases that are worth touching on, where the type of haulage that a business does is unlikely to receive a permit due to the pattern of haulage movements, despite high economic benefits. That would be precisely the kind of case we have seen of music tours where a single journey from the UK might involve numerous stops across Europe. The amendment allows us to cater for those eventualities as well.

To be clear, the number of permits for such purposes will be small. We believe that we should apply a standard set of criteria to all applicants wherever possible. The amendment will allow us to smooth off some of the rough edges that come from having a permit scheme for, for example, matters of key national security or wider economic interests.

[Jesse Norman]

I have not considered that. I certainly think that there are cases of industrial action that might constitute a national emergency. We have seen that in fuel haulage, for example. I am not sure that I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but I understand the spirit in which he intervenes.

The power before us is relevant only where the number of permits is limited. As I have said, we expect to reach an agreement where there is no limit on the number of permits, which would avoid the need to use subsection (2) of clause 2. I remind the Committee that we are consulting on the detail of a permit scheme, including how permits are allocated, which will inform the regulations that are made under the clause.

The policy scoping documents published in March set out that we intend the Secretary of State to have powers to allocate permits directly. These will be used for areas of economic importance or for security. Amendment 1 does not change the policy on the methods for allocating permits; it simply ensures that a small number of permits can be kept aside to deal with those cases, even when they are not a clear “class of applicants”, as the previous drafting would have required. That allows us to be clear with Parliament about how we envisage a permit scheme operating and how the powers in the Bill would be used.

[Rachael Maskell]

I really appreciate the Minister giving way. Could he outline how exemptions would not be abused by hauliers?

[Jesse Norman]

Of course, attempts to seek exemptions would be examined carefully and soberly. I have already said that we do not expect this to be anything other than a small number of exemptions. We are not expecting abuse of this provision. The point is to try to be clear and to allow for unusual circumstances, and to do so in a limited and constrained way. The haulage industry already rightly expects us to offer that level of flexibility to allow its own businesses to operate as flexibly as they do now. These simple and sensible amendments will allow us to work for the haulage industry in any future permit scheme, and I hope that the Committee will support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

Clearly we are handling the Bill in a most unusual way, because a consultation process is currently live on whether we should be using environmental measures to determine how permits are to be issued, so I will withhold my judgment on that. We will be able to address the issue at the next stage when we consider the regulations. I am happy not to press amendment 8.

On amendment 7, the Minister’s descriptions of “random” and “first come, first served” still do not satisfy the real requirements of driving our economy forward and ensuring that it is secure and that lorry movements will be able to support that. However, I also recognise that the Minister has said that the Government are consulting on those elements. Again, we will be able to address the issue of how the permit system will operate at the next stage of drafting the regulations.

I must say that the Minister was confused in the way he presented his rationale for the inclusion of these terms in the Bill. It is completely superfluous to suggest a “first come, first served” or “random” selection if the consultation is going on currently. I do not understand why they are included in the Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

The effect of not including them in the Bill would be that it was less clear to Parliament that these possible means of selection were available to the Secretary of State. Surely the hon. Lady agrees that more transparency is better than less.

[Rachael Maskell]

The drafting could have been greatly improved if it make the points that the Minister is trying to make. I still believe that the wording is somewhat clumsy but, given that this issue will be superseded by regulation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Committee for those comments on the amendments, and I am grateful for the support that hon. Members have given us on the question of flexibility. In response to the question about abuse, which was perfectly proper, I should say that we will certainly expect hauliers to demonstrate why they required a permit under those unusual circumstances, and what goods they plan to move. It is important to give that clarity. As I said, we do not expect it to be more than a small number. I thank colleagues for their contributions. Amendment 1 is a simple amendment, and I beg to move—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 2, leave out from “permit,” to end of line 3 and insert

“including provision specifying—

(i) when an application is to be made, or that the time when an application is to be made is to be determined by the Secretary of State;”

This amendment would ensure that regulations can provide for the time when a permit application is to be made to be determined by the Secretary of State.

The amendment relates to times when permit applications must be made. The Bill currently outlines that regulations may specify when an application may be made, and our intention was to include that in regulations, but the effect of that may be inadvertently to limit the flexibility to issue permits. For example, where we expect the demand for permits to exceed supply, we will ask hauliers to submit applications during a specified period that would allow permits to be allocated consistently, in accordance with the criteria included in the regulations.

However, because of the various possible permit types and different permit agreements that we have with different countries, we want to be able to accept applications at different times, in some cases where we have more permits than we require, and for permits to be issued in special cases, as we discussed earlier. We want to accept permit applications at any time, but by setting out in regulations where applications can be made we would be limiting that.

The haulage industry will, as I said, expect us to offer as much flexibility as we can. The amendment makes simple, sensible changes that, again, allow us to work for the haulage industry. I hope that the Committee will support its inclusion.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister’s explanation seems perfectly reasonable. He says that he believes that there will be a limited number of circumstances, so it will be interesting to see that in reality. I will reserve my other comments for discussion of clause 3.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Temporary exemptions

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

As the hon. Lady said, the clause allows the Secretary of State to make a temporary relaxation of permit requirements, which is limited to dealing with an emergency or some other special need. By “special need”, we mean a situation in which it is essential to move particular kinds of goods—for example, as I have touched on, where there is a shortage of petrol or other fuel because of disruption in supply chains. We could also include moving medical supplies or radioactive materials.

Permit requirements will come from international agreements, so the UK cannot unilaterally decide to make an exemption. The other country will need to accept UK vehicles without a permit. The effect is that the power is as much about UK vehicles being able to take goods to other countries as about bringing goods into the UK. We intend that exemptions will be targeted at those who need to travel without a permit. That could be a particular kind of vehicle—a fuel tanker or a vehicle carrying specific goods, such as vaccines. The exemptions are made by publishing a notice or writing to a specific operator being exempted, similar to exemptions made in other regimes, for example with drivers’ hours. The circumstances in which this power is used are expected to be rare, and therefore we do not expect it to be used with any great frequency. It is important that it is included in the Bill in the event that exception is needed. That is why we have asked the Committee to agree that clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.

The hon. Lady’s amendment raises an interesting point. I think it is appropriate for the officials and me to consider what information about this should be published, but I do not believe that it needs to be a provision in the Bill. The circumstances in which temporary exemptions are to be granted are expected to be sufficiently rare that, although we can consider what information is published on them, I do not think there is great value in laying this issue before Parliament.

[Rachael Maskell]

Could the Minister therefore explain how he will make that information available so that Parliament can scrutinise whether the regime proposed for permit exemptions is operating well, and how he plans to gather that data and make it available more widely?

[Jesse Norman]

It is in the nature of these things that they are unpredictable. It is also the case that, where that information is published, as opposed to simply being notified, it will not be absolutely clear how many will be availing themselves of the exemption. We certainly do not wish to create onerous requirements. I am happy to have a further conversation outside the Committee, if the hon. Lady has ideas or suggestions about how information should be taken into account in any future work that we do.

[Rachael Maskell]

I listened carefully to the Minister, on how he is willing to engage on the amendment, given the lack of clarity. I am just considering again the regulations that will have to accompany the Bill, should it proceed to enactment. In the light of that, clearly there will be regulations on how the exemption scheme will operate. If he is willing to look at how the number and type of temporary exemptions are provided for through the regulatory process, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. Will he consider that?

[Jesse Norman]

I am very happy to consider that.

[Rachael Maskell]

I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Production of permits and inspection of vehicles

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to clause 6. As discussed before, there needs to be greater clarity around the inspection regime of permits. I have not been satisfied by the Minister’s response about the inspection regime. It seems strange to have a permit system but no systematic way of examining the permits to ensure that they are compliant with the vehicles they are attributed to, so we need to look at this serious issue. It seems that a slightly random process is applied to hauliers and whether they are hauled off the road and have their permits and documentation examined. If, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, we are to take control of our borders, it is incumbent on us to have a systematic way of ensuring that vehicles’ documentation is in order. We therefore need greater clarity on how the inspectorate system will work and on whether there will be more resources put into the inspectorate, given that more documentation will have to be manually examined in the absence of digital opportunities. We need to ensure that there is full compliance with the regime.

There is a further concern. The Minister has set out for us today how there will be exemptions to the scheme and how vehicles, drivers and operators could fall through the gaps between exemptions and the lack of a systematic way of examining permits. Will the Minister give more attention to ensuring that our borders are secure and that trade will still be able to flow? People across the country will be surprised if hauliers do not have the correct paperwork on board, and people who voted to leave the European Union will be most disappointed that our borders will not be more secure.

Perhaps the Minister will set out how he anticipates ensuring a comprehensive inspectorate around his permit proposals, and how he will ensure we do not see the holding up of haulage, but at the same time have strong compliance.

[Jesse Norman]

I am slightly struggling with what the hon. Lady wants: on the one hand, she wants a comprehensive system where it seems that everyone gets checked at borders; on the other hand, she wants frictionless trade. Those two things are incompatible.

[Rachael Maskell]

May I help the Minister? I assure him that I want us to be part of the EU community licensing scheme, which would remove all those challenges.

[Jesse Norman]

That, of course, does not go to the circumstances contemplated by much of the Bill. The Bill is precisely designed to address issues where we may need a permitting regime. Therefore, what the hon. Lady said does not go the point, I am afraid.

Let us be perfectly clear: the Bill does not contain new powers. Examiners from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency already have powers to stop vehicles in other enforcement legislation. Community licensing is already enforced in roadside vehicle checks. At the same time, many other regulations are checked, including drivers’ hours regulations and vehicle roadworthiness. We intend to enforce permits in the same way as community licences. We have not created any new powers to stop vehicles. Vehicles are stopped at present; in that sense, our borders remain secure. Our hauliers are subject, as the hon. Lady knows, to a set of enforcement powers that ensure that regulations on moving goods are properly complied with. All this clause does is give similar powers for a future permit scheme, to ensure that it is properly used and enforced.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does the Minister not recognise that we are moving into a completely new scenario? Most of our haulage traffic crosses between the European Union and the UK, which will be a different jurisdiction after 29 March next year. Therefore, we are talking about a very different set of scenarios from the one we currently operate in, which will make more demands on the system. Currently, as part of that same community, we do not have to carry out those checks because there is recognition across those borders.

[Jesse Norman]

I think the hon. Lady misunderstands; there is a community licence scheme in place. When hauliers are pulled over at present, their community compliance is checked in the same way that their drivers’ hours regulations are checked. If she does not understand that, she may just not understand how our system actually works.

[Rachael Maskell]

I do understand how the system works, but we are talking about a different set of scenarios because we will have a border, whatever its nature may be. That is why we are dealing with a different set of circumstances. If we are outside the community licensing scheme, clearly, the way that the permit will operate, hence the necessity for this Bill, will mean that we will not be part of that wider community that currently exists. It is not just about making sure there is compliance; there is more need and demand to ensure that there is compliance with a new permit scheme.

[Jesse Norman]

The current scheme operates in the way I have described. What is contemplated under the Bill as regards the powers to enforce will track the current scheme. That is to say, the Bill does not contain new powers. In that sense, there will be a high degree of carry-over, quite independent of the arrangement that we strike with the European Union, which, as the hon. Lady knows, we expect to be one of liberalised trade. The point is that community licensing is already enforced and it will continue to be under the new regime in the same way it is already enforced. There are no new powers.

All we ask of the Committee is to recognise that these powers are required to implement the purpose of the Bill, the principles of which were agreed on Second Reading, and that they are properly fit for the task and reflect what we are doing in relation to the community licence. They are thoroughly sensible powers for proper enforcement of a permits regime.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Report on effects of EU-related provisions

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 9, page 5, line 30, after “Kingdom” insert

“and setting out the number of permits requested, granted and refused”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the number of permits requested, granted and refused.

The Committee will be pleased to know that this is the last amendment I have tabled to this part of the Bill.

The amendment looks at the way the permit system is operating, how it is working—or perhaps not working—and providing the data necessary for Parliament to carry out its scrutiny function. It is a simple amendment that asks Ministers to set out

“the number of permits requested, granted and refused”,

so that there can be real understanding of why permits are refused, and of the level of refusal, should that situation occur. It would also be useful for the industry to get a detailed understanding of processes that the Government operate over their permit arrangements, hopefully leading to a reduction in the number of permits refused in the future. This is not only an informative amendment, but again, one that deals with gathering simple data. I am sure we are looking at only a small number of permits that will be refused, but I believe that this is a sensible amendment, which will help with the scrutiny function over how well the Bill operates in the future.

[Jesse Norman]

I can be brief and supportive on this. The Government brought forward an amendment in the other place to add clause 9 to the Bill, honouring an undertaking that my noble colleague Baroness Sugg gave

“to consider how best to review the impacts of any permit scheme, should one be required.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 April 2018; Vol. 790, c. 1100.]

We have been clear that we are seeking continued liberalised access to the EU. However, I recognise that there is some concern about the impact of any limited scheme on the haulage industry. If a report is required under clause 9, the Government would naturally plan for this to include the number of permits requested, granted or refused, and I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. Accordingly, I do not believe that the amendment requires the Secretary of State to do anything that he would not expect to do in any case. For that reason, the amendment is unnecessary and I ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing it.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister reflect on how he communicates how the refusal system is working? While I take on board what he has said, clearly there is concern that if there are refusals, greater understanding is needed around that, and whether that is due to the limitation on the number of permits provided—a concern I raised earlier—or to applicants not complying with the permit scheme’s requirements.

[Jesse Norman]

We are talking about circumstances in which a report is required. If so—and that may not be the case—the Government would plan for this to include the number of permits requested, granted or refused. Inevitably, that then becomes a matter for official discussion, scrutiny and further consideration. Of course, it is also a matter that can be raised and debated in Parliament. The hon. Lady should feel some reassurance on that front.

[Rachael Maskell]

In the light of the Minister’s response and of the fact that Parliament will have the opportunity to ask questions and have debates on the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Trailer Registration

[Rachael Maskell]

Labour supports this amendment. Clarity is needed on the eligibility of the compulsory and voluntary schemes, and the amendment would be helpful in making it clear where obligations sit in this regard. Labour wants to extend the application of the legislation to non-commercial trailers, since incidents occur as a result of poor tow bar instalment and failed safety features on domestic trailers. It is therefore important to incorporate domestic-use trailers into the scheme. The significance of a voluntary registration scheme is unclear if there are no other levers on this issue, such as liability if incidents occur. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the use of the voluntary scheme to the Committee.

However, Labour does not believe that a third-party operator should run the scheme and wants to see this kept in-house, especially as it is a critical road safety issue. We believe that this function should be exercised through an arm’s length body. We support the call not to delay producing the report mentioned in clause 13, thus ensuring that it can be used to influence the drafting of regulations to accompany this Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

We turn now to the second half of the Bill and trailer registration. I will respond to the points made and talk about the wider thrust of the legislation. Hon. Members will be aware that the consultation launched on 16 May covered the extent of the proposals in the Bill across both haulage permits and trailer registration. We are consulting with the industry to help us get the details of any permit scheme and the trailer registration scheme right. The consultation on the proposals, as they currently stand, seeks views on a number of issues relating to trailer registration. Our proposals require the registration purely of those trailers undertaking international travel to a foreign country that has ratified the 1968 Vienna convention. This goes to the point about voluntary registration. That would apply to commercial trailers weighing over 750 kg and non-commercial trailers weighing over 3.5 tonnes. Ministers and officials in the Department have been engaged with industry throughout the development of these proposals. In spring this year, we held workshops to discuss them with hauliers and relevant trade associations, among a range of other stakeholders.

In addition to the public consultation, we have published a number of documents to assist and inform discussion of the Bill. Policy papers have been issued on the Bill and on the 1968 Vienna convention, which the trailer registration scheme is being introduced to support. Policy scoping notes are available to Members in the House of Commons Library.

The Government’s outline policy makes clear which types of trailer will be subject to additional obligations if used abroad, upon the coming into force of the 1968 convention. Trailer registration is commonplace throughout continental Europe. As such, if we did not place any obligations on users taking trailers abroad that would be likely to attract targeted enforcement action from foreign enforcement authorities. That point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby on Second Reading. That enforcement action would cause disruption on a significant scale, even to those trailers that are correctly registered, and would have an adverse effect beyond hauliers, causing disruption to UK businesses and the international supply chains within which they operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I think that language is not helping deliberation on this matter. We require registration for the classes of trailer that I have described, which undertake international travel to a foreign country. It is not voluntary for those trailers that fall within those categories. It is mandatory and therefore meets the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I will go on to discuss it in slightly more detail.

The Government’s outline policy makes clear which types of trailer will be subject to additional obligations if used abroad, upon the coming into force of the 1968 convention. As I have said, trailer registration is commonplace. The measure is designed to mitigate the effects of enforcement action undertaken abroad.

On the basis of engagement with industry and previously reported enforcement to UK authorities, we have drawn a distinction between commercial and non-commercial trailers, which is the basis for the higher weight limit of 3.5 tonnes for non-commercial trailers. Engagement with non-commercial stakeholders has indicated a negligible number of such trailers.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister explain to the Committee whether, when an incident occurs, it makes any difference if it is a commercial or non-commercial trailer?

[Jesse Norman]

Our experience is that there has been very little enforcement against non-commercial trailers abroad. There has, however, been some enforcement against commercial trailers, for which this would be a defence. That is a reason for recommending the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

With respect to the Minister, that did not answer the question I asked. I asked why there would be any differentiation in the weight of the trailer, if it was owned commercially or non-commercially, should an incident occur.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will address this point later, but as the police gather data around the causation of accidents, is it not right that they should also record whether or not causation is related to the towing equipment of a vehicle?

[Jesse Norman]

It is certainly true that police gather information on factors that may bear on causation—of course, causation itself is a judgment rather than a fact. The case for recording such data is under active consideration, but we are concerned about the balance between the amount of potential infraction and the good that it would do by creating an additional burden in an already very full assessment process. That is precisely one of the things that would come out of the wider assessment we are doing now, and is therefore of a piece with the direction of travel of the Government. We recognise that this is an important issue: I have asked officials to consider in the safety report what data may inform further investigation, and this may cover exactly the points raised by the hon. Lady.

The vehicle defect contributory factor is a useful starting point, which is already in the report. Relevant case studies may allow us to explore within that category the question of tow bar safety. Tow bars are clearly integral elements when taking a full picture of the trailer safety situation, and it is correct that they are considered in the report, although I hope, for the reasons outlined, that the hon. Member for Bristol South will not press her amendment.

The hon. Member for York Central has tabled amendment (b) to new clause 1 to outline with greater clarity that the report will cover both commercial and non-commercial trailers. To assuage any concerns that hon. Members may have about the scope of the report, it is important to say that the current drafting covers all accidents involving trailers in Great Britain, without distinction between commercial and non-commercial usage. Those terms are not actually defined in the Bill and may be shaped by the consultation, so it would be premature to insert that requirement. There is no trailer weight category excluded from the trailer safety report, so making the amendment would not change any of the requirements on the Secretary of State set out in new clause 1. I hope the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.

Under amendment (d) to new clause 1, the Secretary of State would be required, for each year following the first report, to lay subsequent annual reports on trailer safety, compulsory registration and periodic testing. The first report will provide a valuable opportunity to consider trailer safety in depth and, as I have said, will draw on recent data recorded under existing recording systems. We also wish to consider how else we can bring in additional data or contributions from industry stakeholders, to ensure that we consider the full breadth of issues relevant to trailer safety, but at this stage I do not deem it appropriate to make a commitment to further reports without knowing the outcome of the first report. Either way, the effect of this amendment would be to place a costly requirement on the Government, which is not necessarily warranted unless the first report turns out as feared. None the less, I am happy to consider the need for further reports based on an initial assessment of the overall waterfront, which the first report is designed to do. If the report recommends further registration and testing of trailers, that will take considerable time to implement, and it is important to be aware of that. Equally, if an extension of registration and testing is not recommended, an immediate further report may well offer no additional value.

The parliamentary debate has been valuable and considered. As my noble Friend Baroness Sugg said, we have considered extensively trailer safety and what more Government can and should be doing. That underlined my commitment to undertake a report on trailer safety. The process will allow us to consider how to take this matter forward, but I hope the hon. Member for York Central will be minded to await the initial report before making further commitments as to how this issue is best addressed.

I have gone through this quite thoroughly, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for the way he outlined new clause 1 and responded to the many amendments before us on trailer safety. I would like to speak to many of those amendments, and indeed an amendment to an amendment.

First of all, may I welcome the progress made in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Tunnicliffe? His contribution particularly focused on trailer safety, and it is right that we acknowledge that, as well as the contribution made by Baroness Sugg to the progress leading us to new clause 1. It is clear that we will be supportive of the new clause, because we believe it is an improvement on the substantive Bill.

In making such provision for the inclusion of more trailers, should the evidence point to more trailers needing registering to keep the public safe, regulation should be brought forward. It has been welcome to hear that the Minister will be making those considerations once the report has been put together, but in response to his speech, I want to question how he envisages building up a more robust database. He refers to, in the time period allowed, not going to the depths of all the sources that could be available for formulating such a report, so it would be good to know how he plans to proceed. My amendment (aa), which seeks to have further reporting, could be a source of addressing a more in-depth study.

We could not have been more moved by the speech made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Of course, we all know of her tireless and tenacious campaigning to improve trailer safety following the tragic death of young Freddie Hussey. Just three years old, his life was taken by a trailer that was out of control—a trailer that was only 2 tonnes in weight, that lost connection and then moved forward to failure, due to the position of the handbrake on the trailer. That demonstrates how important it is that we look at the detail of trailer safety and design fault, as well as operator poor use and malfunction. I trust that in the report, we will be able to look at those fine details, because that will be informative for the Minister in determining the best mechanisms to reduce risk on our roads. Ultimately, this is what I believe new clause 1 is trying to achieve: a real understanding of the risks that are presented and the nature of the faults, and therefore what measures can be taken to improve public safety.

Other safety features could also be included—for instance, tyre safety. We certainly know that incidents—some of them tragic—have occurred as a result of the ageing of tyres, and the Minister may want to consider bringing that under regulation and going further than just trailers. We also need to make sure that the work is comprehensive, so looking at weight limits could be an important consideration. I appreciate that we are looking at commercial and non-commercial trailers; I made the point earlier that the ownership of a trailer should not make a difference to the risk. We need to ensure that that is comprehensive. It may be that the data and the evidence show that 750 kg is not the right weight limitation. We need to keep an open mind and trust the reporting of incidents when considering that.

I will ask what I believe is quite a simple question on the changing jurisdiction. The Bill sets out that reporting will be for the UK, but the new clause talks about England, Wales and Scotland. What has happened to Northern Ireland? Will the Minister consider separate data for Northern Ireland, which I appreciate will probably be under a different jurisdiction? Will he take that into account, or was the new clause a tidying-up measure to remove Northern Ireland from the data sources?

My amendment (aa) is to amendment (a) to new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South and is incredibly important. It would provide for monitoring incidents and ensuring that we create a culture of the highest standards. While many trailers are privately constructed, it is important that they are built to the highest safety standards and subject to inspection. The Minister’s comment on the scale of this and how we can bring in inspection regimes was interesting. The offer of free tow bar checks from the leadership of the National Trailer and Towing Association, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham set out on Second Reading, is certainly a progressive step that could well address the question that the Minister posed in his opening remarks.

We need to ensure that trailers, whether for heavy duty or occasional use, are up to standard, and therefore a one-off test may not address the issue. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham gave evidence of that when talking about the corrosion of trailers. We need to understand more about the lifecycle of trailers to ensure that safety is adhered to. Amendment (a) seeks to ensure that the report considers the construction, condition and safety of all trailers.

My amendment (b) to new clause 1 considers a point that the Minister addressed in his remarks on commercial and non-commercial trailers. As I have said, the risk seems to occur across the board, but we should look at recording the distinction between commercial and non-commercial trailers, because there may be a higher propensity in the non-commercial field, for example, of the attachment of trailers to create a higher risk, because the full operation of locking down that attachment may not be as efficient as when done by people who do it every day as part of their work. We therefore need to look at the distinction across the board to identify where risk sits in the system, and gathering data on that would be invaluable.

My amendment (c) to new clause 1 looks at the reporting of road traffic accidents, which the Minister referred to earlier. I believe that the police gather comprehensive data on accidents, and directly correlating or associating those with a trailer incident will be invaluable in understanding the risks created by trailers. The amendment would be an important inclusion in the Bill. We are not asking for additional work to be done, just for inclusion in the Minister’s report. I hope that he will consider that further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

One great benefit of the Bill is that it has brought into the foreground a set of issues. It is the beginning of a conversation and a process of reflection that the Government need to have, and it will go well beyond the Bill itself. One can imagine what the different elements of that would be. The first might be education and public awareness, the next stage might be specific intervention, and so on all the way up the tree. I would not rule any of that out—it is just a matter of understanding the basis on which we operate.

In a way, it is a cautionary tale. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned tyre safety, which is another serious issue. She will know that Frances Molloy has campaigned in a very admirable way, having had a bereavement that was just as devastating in its own way as that of Donna and Scott Hussey. The view she has taken is that all tyres over 10 years old should be banned. In fact, in answer to her original campaign, the Department set out in guidance that no tyre aged over 10 years old should be fitted to the front steering axle of a bus. The effect has been remarkable and transformative in that we have seen very little infringement. We have tried on two previous occasions to commission what we considered to be an evidentially robust means of investigation. I am pleased to say that, after several years of trying and failing, we now have a process in mind. That is an example of how one can do an awful lot in advance as part of the process of evidence-gathering—that is what we are trying to do in the context of the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

I concur with the Minister on the need for good inspection regimes, whether that is applied to tyre safety, tow bars or trailers. Will he therefore look at what the tow bar industry is doing with regard to the free inspections it is offering the public? Perhaps the Government should support that while looking at the wider issue of trailer safety.

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that. At the trailer summit, I had a chance to talk to the people running the programme, but there is no doubt that we can do more.

The hon. Lady rightly mentioned a range of issues that might have a bearing on this—design fault, operator misuse or the safety of the equipment. All those factors need to be included in the comprehensive consideration I have described. I have said that we expect that to include more data and sources. The vehicle defect category may offer more scope for enlargement if we want to gather more data. She has rightly stressed having an open mind, which is very much what I bring.

We want to involve an expert consideration with stakeholders as part of our reflection. I have found that enormously helpful in other aspects of my portfolio—walking, cycling or road safety—but it is an integral part of the discussion. When we are trying to bring an amorphous body of data under control, it is important to include case studies, which we can do. I hope therefore that what we achieve will be genuinely rich and satisfying, and provide the basis for proper further consideration and, if necessary, action.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I have a series of questions for the Minister, rather than a speech. Could he give clarity on who is responsible for the periodic testing of trailers and the resources? Will he consider including tow bars or tow hitches in new clause 2, subsection (1), which states:

“Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers”?

I have to apologise—I thought consideration of the Bill would last for four more sittings. Otherwise, I would have tabled amendments to that effect. It would be gracious of the Minister to comment on that.

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to colleagues. If a testing regime is to be introduced, the Department will decide what the best way of doing that is. I anticipate that it would be done through an extension of work that has already been commissioned by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and other relevant authorities.

Foreign trailers on our roads will be expected to obey the laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the same way that any other trailer would. They will be subject to the applicable law. I want to be sure that I have caught the question that the hon. Member for York Central raised.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Minister. We are looking not just at the trailers we produce ourselves, but at the use of trailers no matter where they come from. Depending on which jurisdiction they enter our roads from, they could carry risk. If tow bars are not fitted correctly, if the attachment is not locked down, or if the driver is driving carelessly, they pose a risk to the British public. How will the Minister respond to that?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying the point. The answer is, of course, that laws will apply to those trailers just as they would to domestic trailers. However, she rightly raises a wider point. Whether there is a difference in the assessment of trailers brought in from other countries—they may be subject to different regulatory rules—could well be considered in the wider trailer safety report. The report could also consider whether EU standards, or those of other countries, are doing the job we expect them to do. Hopefully that covers all the questions.

[Jesse Norman]

I cannot take that as a formal amendment, but I will certainly give the matter consideration.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 23

Regulations

Amendment made: 5, in clause 23, page 13, line 35, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A statutory instrument containing any of the following (with or without other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—

(a) the first regulations under section 1;

(b) the first regulations under section 2;

(c) the first regulations under section 13;

(d) the first regulations under section 18;

(e) the first regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations);

(f) other regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) which amend an Act.”—(Jesse Norman.)

This amendment requires the first regulations for periodic testing of trailers (see NC2), and any later regulations which amend an Act, to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Extent

Amendment made: 6, in clause 24, page 14, line 8, leave out “Section 11 extends” and insert—

“Sections 11, (Trailer safety: report) and (Trailer safety: testing regulations) extend”.—(Jesse Norman.)

This amendment provides that the new clauses about trailer safety (see NC1 and NC2) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Commencement and transitional provision

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 25, page 14, line 16, at end insert—

“(1) Where as an outcome of the negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom remains in the European Union’s Community Licence regime, sections 1, 2 and 3 will cease to have effect.”.

This amendment would mean that the powers set out in section 1, 2 or 3 would not be available to the Secretary of State where the UK remains in the European Union’s Community Licence Regime.

We have made excellent progress on the Bill this afternoon. In tabling this amendment, Labour was seeking assurances about what we do should we find that the legislation is not necessary. We believe that inserting a sunset clause would be a helpful way of tidying up that element of business. As we have learned from today’s debate, there are still a huge number of uncertainties about the future management of the Bill in the light of the negotiations taking place about the future, not least in relation to the community licensing scheme, which we trust that the Government will seek to be a part of as we move forward. In the light of our discussions and the greater clarity from the Minister today, we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Short title

Transport for the South East

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jesse Norman]

I was coming to the specific issues that have been raised. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the current roads investment strategy scheme includes a package of improvements to the existing route. We expect consultation to start in spring 2020, and are providing funding toward a feasibility study for a larger-scale bypass. Those options are being developed as we speak.

If I may press on, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to STBs. The Secretary of State will consider each on its individual merits, and the creation of bespoke arrangements for each STB will reflect the varying local transport and economic growth needs of the area. Creating these organisations permanently by statute is a serious matter and is not to be undertaken lightly. It requires the proper level of local consensus and commitment, but if it is done properly, the payoff is that the entity increases its impact and influence, as well as its longevity, and therefore has the potential to play a role in delivering transformational change.

The shadow Minister raised Operation Stack and the M20. We will recall that the disruption in 2015 was not brought about by any Brexit-related activity but by unions and by other factors. As she will be aware, the Department has asked Highways England to develop and deliver an interim solution to mitigate the worst effects of traffic disruption on the M20 by March 2019. A series of potential options can be used as part of that, and our goal with all of those is to allow non-port traffic to continue to travel in both directions.

One colleague mentioned the extension of Crossrail to Abbey Wood. I can confirm that the route to Abbey Wood is safeguarded, from our point of view, but the focus in the first instance, as one might imagine, must be to deliver Crossrail on time.

One perfectly understands why hon. Members mentioned A27 investment. They should be aware that we expect to make preferred route announcements for the improvements at Worthing and Lancing, and for the bypass at Arundel, by summer 2018.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) mentioned the Heathrow rail link. He knows that that important proposal will be considered alongside other national priorities through the planning process for the next control period. That will ensure that the rail link provides maximum benefit for passengers, and will allow us to understand the journey opportunities and other possibilities that such a link could provide.

I was asked whether the concerns of Gravesham residents will be reflected in the decision on the lower Thames crossing. I can confirm that Highways England will continue to work with all stakeholders.

It is a little hard, and self-contradictory and inaccurate, for the shadow Minister to accuse the Government of introducing too much centralisation. Let us not forget that, since 2010, the Government have created local enterprise partnerships, metro mayoralties, Transport for the North, Transport for the South East and other sub-national transport bodies. They do represent not centralisation but devolution. It is self-contradictory to say that too much centralisation is going on and that devolution has created a patchwork or mosaic. With devolution comes diversity and difference. Part of the strength of devolution as an idea is precisely that we can take advantage of the best efforts and the best opportunities and examples used locally and the creativity that pushing power down unleashes.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does the Minister recognise that Transport for the North was absolutely clear that it wanted the electrification of the Transpennine route? The Secretary of State denied that opportunity to TfN. While the Government have created spaces for dialogue, they certainly have not given power, which is what devolution has to be about.

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will know that TfN became a statutory body literally weeks ago. These are very early days. There remains a role for national policy making where issues of cost and benefit, passenger satisfaction and the proper spending of public money are in play—that is entirely as it should be. The key point is that TfN exists and is functioning. It is working hard to reflect the interests of the constituencies and the economic priorities of its diverse region, which we massively welcome.

The shadow Minister offers what she calls a completely different approach. Since our approach is long term, strategic and integrated, and involves a significant increase in funding, I wonder which part of long term, strategic, integrated or higher funded her new approach will differ from.

[Rachael Maskell]

I will again draw on the electrification example and the words of sheer frustration coming from the rail industry at the Government’s stop-start approach to control period 5. The industry has seen only blocks of funding, as opposed to the Government looking at the 30-year planning process needed across the rail network, which Labour will certainly adopt.

[Jesse Norman]

It is certainly a helpful clarification that the shadow Minister’s comments apply only to rail. I thank her for that.

The shadow Minister raised bus tech. She will know that bus companies are investing significantly in new ticketing technologies. We rightly fund them to the tune of, I think, a couple of billion pounds a year through the bus service operators grant. The proposal she seems to be making amounts to expropriation of the bus companies if a Labour Government are elected. That seems to me to be not only economically unwise but thoroughly contrary to the interests of passengers.

Finally, the shadow Minister raised cycling and walking. I invite Members to raise their hand if they cycled to the House of Commons today.

[Rachael Maskell]

indicated assent.

[Jesse Norman]

I am delighted. I congratulate the shadow Minister for sharing my commitment to the cycling and walking investment strategy. I assure her that our new cycling and walking review is gathering an enormous number of good ideas about how we can put public money and better regulation, co-ordination and co-operation to better support cycling and walking. She is absolutely right to raise the importance of this issue and the importance of modal shift, and I thoroughly concur. She will know that, as a result of our cycling and walking investment strategy, public funding for those areas has roughly trebled since 2010. That is a record on which I would like us to continue to build.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there has been a fiscal settlement which has changed over time, very much in consultation with and with the support of the Scottish Government. Of course, any changes to UK funding in England will be followed by Barnett consequentials, with an impact in Scotland.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Well, investment does not seem to be working that well. The Carillion staff working on the Manchester-Bolton-Preston electrification project had their contract suspended this week. So can the Minister clarify this: should all these workers only expect the jobcentre phone number, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, or can he guarantee that these works, and all similar infrastructure undertakings, will continue to completion, with the current workforce, apprentices, supply chain and project plan?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will be aware that this Government have made it clear that anyone turning up to work on those schemes through subcontractors will continue to be paid in the normal way. It is important to get that message out there, and not to spread misinformation or misunderstanding about it.

[Rachael Maskell]

The problem with the Minister’s reply is that the vultures are already circling over the Carillion contract carcases, which will place these projects into future risk, not least as companies such as Interserve and Mitie have had profit warnings served in the last six months. So what due diligence has he instructed officials to undertake of all contractors, and will he end his market speculation by taking these contracts back in house?

[Jesse Norman]

Had the hon. Lady done her homework, she would know that there is almost no exposure to the rail sector through the companies that she mentioned. The fact of the matter is that the contracts have often been reinforced and proofed. Certainly on the road side, which I obviously know best—I can refer her question to the rail Minister—we have joint-venture partners that are jointly and severally obliged to pick up these obligations, and they will do so.

Draft Sub-national Transport Body (Transport for the North) Regulations 2017

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Wednesday 10th January 2018 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson for her comments. Let me address the several points she raised.

First, the regulations have been drafted with the support, and in some cases at the formal request, of Transport for the North and the constituent authorities themselves. The Government are acting not in a vacuum but very closely in consultation with the constituent authorities and Transport for the North’s own management and executive team. Therefore, I do not think it is correct to say that those things are in some sense not supported locally; on the contrary, the reason the Labour party supports them and the reason they command support across the north is that everyone recognises that this body is a very important step for this important subject, in a central area of our future economic development.

Secondly, it is very bold to talk about devolution in a grand way. The Labour party ought to be careful to think about what that actually implies. We have national networks in road, rail and other areas mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central, and devolution can upset national flows and the coherence of a national strategy. It is important for Government to recognise and respect that. I have no doubt that any Government in this position would be concerned about the national aspect of such important networks.

Thirdly, these powers are absolutely not unambitious, as the hon. Lady suggested. I remind the Committee that this is the first sub-national transport body, and important powers are being allocated to Transport for the North. The power to produce the statutory transport strategy is important, and the fact that it is statutory gives it an authority and status that commands respect. This entity now has the capacity to fund organisations that can deliver transport projects—smart ticketing, for example—and the Government are working with and giving the power for TfN to work with local authorities to fund, promote and deliver schemes, and to be consulted on schemes, which is important. Those are important powers, and an important devolution of autonomy and control to the region, and rightly so.

As I have said, 56 authorities were consulted and the idea that they form an entirely coherent group that is able to speak with one voice is fanciful. It is important for TfN to bring together all those concerns and mould them into a strategy, and in due course we will see the results of its work on that. The idea that there is somehow a single voice, and therefore a comparison with Transport for London, is far-fetched. We are in the early stages of setting up a new institution, and anyone who wishes to ask whether that institution speaks with one voice, and whether more powers should be devolved to it, should ask from which local transport or other authority those powers will be removed. Is the hon. Lady genuinely suggesting that Transport for Greater Manchester should have some of its powers removed to go to Transport for the North, because that is the implication of creating a body of the kind she described? This is far from unambitious—these are ambitious and far-reaching proposals on which this Government, and future Governments, could build if they are successful.

This Government are the first to have introduced a national walking and cycling strategy. They inherited a situation in which walking and cycling were being funded at the rate of £2 a head per year, and that is now £6 a head per year. That is not enough, but it is a significant improvement.

I thank the hon. Lady for her constructive points, and we will obviously attend to them. We see the establishment of Transport for the North as a significant step for the north and the country as a whole. It will work with the region’s transport authorities and elected Mayors to build a long-term vision for transport across the north of England. As the voice of the north in that area, Transport for the North will have unprecedented influence over Government funding and decision making. The Government have demonstrated that by setting up this institution and backing the election of metro Mayors, we are giving the north greater autonomy and control, and a powerful voice to articulate the case for new transport projects.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I wish to come back on a number of issues. First, let me be clear that Labour fully supports the setting up of this sub-national transport body, Transport for the North. We want it to be successful, but we do not underestimate the real challenges faced by the new strategic body, and we therefore want to ensure that it has the powers and authority to deliver what it needs to deliver on behalf of local authorities and strategic bodies across the north. That is why we have made a close determination about what those powers should be, in dialogue with authorities across the north, as well as Transport for the North.

I challenged the assumptions made by the Minister because there are successful bodies, whether in Wales, Scotland or London, that have greater control over their transport determinations, and we must question why a similar determination cannot be made by a body in the north. Transport for the North should clearly have greater powers to determine the destiny of the economy and communities of the north, and that is why we urge the Minister to go further in future.

I challenge the Minister’s claim that TfN has those wider powers, because there is still a massive dependency on the Secretary of State making determinations. We are not talking about taking any powers away from local authorities, because we believe in devolved decision making. However, the regulations are too dependent on the Secretary of State making the determinations and the sign-off.

Although we recognise the importance of a strategic national plan for our transport system, it is important that those powers are devolved down into a sub-national transport body. The Secretary of State should produce evidence of why that should not happen and why it is he should affirm such decisions. I question the Minister’s claim that our proposal would not function, given what is happening in other areas.

The Minister also raised the issue of not all the strategic bodies speaking with one voice. That is exactly why we recognise the role of collaboration, but we also argue that, where a dispute occurs between authorities, they should be able to access arbitration. Of course, there will be different interests and approaches. Those are determined by the difference and variety of communities across the north. We believe that the strategic body for transport in the north should have greater powers at that level.

Finally, on walking and cycling, the latter is funded at the rate of £6 per head, but we want the figure to be increased to £10 per head. We want to be ambitious and to change the approach. I specifically asked the Minister why cycle paths and bridleways were omitted from the regulations, while footpaths, roads and highways were included. Is that an omission by default or was there intent behind it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I have a few points to make in response. There are two kinds of devolution: the first relates to whether more powers should be devolved from the Secretary of State, and the second to the relationship between Transport for the North and its constituent authorities. I will take those two in turn.

The hon. Lady’s appeal with regard to Transport for London relates to the second issue. If Transport for the North is to function in due course in any way analogous to Transport for London, that will require local and transport authorities to give up powers to TfN. She has to answer whether she—and those authorities—are comfortable to give up those powers, because that is what is implied by her comparison to Transport for London. I do not think that those authorities would be comfortable with that; there is no evidence for that. They have vigorously asserted the powers that they have received under the metro Mayors, and rightly so, and in many cases they are doing exciting and interesting things with those powers.

That is one aspect of devolution. As to the other aspect, which is whether the Secretary of State should devolve more powers, the hon. Lady said I did not offer an argument, but in fact the opposite is true: I offered two arguments. First, this is a new entity. It is the first sub-national transport body. Let us see whether this entity, with all the embedded conflicts and properly articulated differences of priorities, can pool that into a concrete set of proposals and work effectively with this and future Governments to prove its worth. When it has done that, the case for further devolution of powers will become clear. The regulations already provide substantial devolution.

Secondly, one must be very careful to ensure that devolved powers do not conflict with national networks. We do not want to do that. In this country we have always run the strategic roads network as a strategic network. Increasingly, with the development of the new major roads network, we are running a network on a national routes basis, and it is important to respect that.

The hon. Lady’s final question concerned cycle paths and footpaths, but they are a matter for local authorities. They do not need to be mentioned in the regulations and can perfectly properly be managed, as matters presently stand, by local authorities. That is the principle adopted by the regulations.

[Rachael Maskell]

Clearly, the Minister and I, and our parties, have a completely different view of devolution. We very much see it as taking power from the centre down into the regions. Evolution is how I would describe the taking away of power from local authorities—we certainly do not support that.

I have a couple of final questions. On a point of clarity, the Minister indicated towards the end of his response that there would be further devolution of powers. Does he intend Transport for the North to have greater powers in future? Is this a staging process to achieve that, in line with other transport authorities, which are clearly on a different statutory setting? It would be interesting to hear his response, given the weakness of the powers in the regulations.

Secondly, I need to correct the Minister: cycle paths and bridleways are not mentioned in the regulations but footpaths are. I asked why there is that disparity. The Minister now says that footpaths and cycle paths are for local authorities, so why are footpaths in the regulations? I need clarity on that point because it is now more opaque than when we started.

[Jesse Norman]

On cycle ways and footpaths, I will write to the hon. Lady with details of the history of that, which should settle the matter. On future powers, the Government have made no judgment. The thrust of my argument is that, once Transport for the North is a fully functioning, successful body and able to discharge the functions it has presently been given, it will then be open for it to make the case to this or future Governments for the devolution of further powers. That would be a perfectly proper exercise of its voice, which has been given statutory authority by the regulations. The Government have made no decision on that but have not ruled it out.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Sub-national Transport Body (Transport for the North) Regulations 2017.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jesse Norman

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The smart meter programme should be judged on its long-term effect. It will save £47 billion by the end of that decade.[Official Report, 15 March 2017, Vol. 623, c. 5-6MC.]

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When will the business rate review commence and report? The sticking plasters offered last week will do little for small businesses in York.