Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial provisions) Order 2023
(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2023.
The order was laid before the House on 24 April 2023, and I am most grateful to right hon. and hon. Friends and Members for being here for this important statutory instrument. Under the order, trials without a jury can take place in Northern Ireland in limited, prescribed circumstances for a further two years, until 31 July 2025. The current provisions will expire on 31 July 2023.
Following a public consultation, and after consideration of the wider security situation in Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland considers it necessary to seek an extension to these provisions to ensure the continued safe administration of justice in specific cases. This decision was made carefully and informed by an extensive public consultation process, as well as by the work of the non-jury trial working group. The group was established following recommendations by the former Independent Reviewer of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 and is composed of representatives from the Public Prosecution Service, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the court service, the Bar, the Law Society and other independent organisations. The group has worked diligently to produce reports for the independent reviewer and to develop a set of indicators to assist the Secretary of State in determining whether these non-jury trial provisions remain necessary in Northern Ireland. Those indicators included several indices of the current levels of paramilitary activity and intimidation in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State considered the indicators in conjunction with the consultation responses and determined that they demonstrate that it would not be appropriate to remove the non-jury trial provisions at this time.
None of us should be in any doubt that it is disappointing that the security situation in Northern Ireland necessitates a further extension of these provisions. However, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture and the real progress that has been made. There is a strong presumption in favour of jury trial in Northern Ireland today, and in 2021 only 0.6% of all Crown court cases were conducted without a jury. That stands in stark contrast to the previous Diplock system, in which, for certain offences, the default was non-jury trial. Under the provisions of the 2007 Act, non-jury trials are reserved for use only in exceptional cases and where the independent Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland deems it to be a risk to the administration of justice for a trial to take place with a jury.
These measures remain necessary to safeguard against risks such as juror intimidation and juror bias in an extremely small number of cases. A non-jury trial may be permitted in such cases if the defendant is associated with a proscribed organisation or if the offence being tried is in connection with religious or political hostility. Such cases are high profile and continue to provoke strong public opinion on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland.
Decisions for non-jury trials are made by the Director of Public Prosecutions on a case-by-case basis, independent of Government and taking into account the circumstances of both the offence and the defendant. As part of the review process, the DPP routinely rejects applications for non-jury trials, and several expert stakeholders who responded to the public consultation cited this and other measures as evidence of the fact that the current system is proportionate and is currently operating with sufficient checks and balances.
Nevertheless, the Government remain committed to bringing to an end these provisions when it is safe and compatible with the interests of justice to do so, but we firmly believe that now is not the time to take this step. As demonstrated by the increase in the threat level to “severe”, which means an attack is highly likely, and the abhorrent attack on Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell earlier this year, a small number of people continue to try to destabilise the political settlement through acts of terrorism and violence. Their activity causes harm to individuals and communities across Northern Ireland, and I know that the whole Committee condemns them for it.
Despite courageous work by the PSNI and others across communities in Northern Ireland, terrorist and paramilitary groups continue to exert influence and control in the communities where they operate. In 2021-22, there were 163 recorded offences of intimidation or threats to harm witnesses, and 170 households were accepted as homeless due to intimidation in 2022. It would be counterintuitive to believe that the same issues faced by witnesses would not be replicated should they be asked to sit as a juror in these cases. Furthermore, the most recent results from the Northern Ireland life and times survey in 2021 found that 17% of respondents believed that paramilitary groups create fear and intimidation in their area. As hon. Members will understand, the considered views of those who responded to the public consultation were crucial to the Secretary of State’s decision to seek an extension to these provisions. I would like to express my thanks on the record to everyone who participated.
The only current alternative to the provisions under debate would be the non-jury trial provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Hon. Members may be aware that, during the public consultation process, significant thought was given to the viability of relying solely on these provisions in Northern Ireland. Although some cited the idea as a long-term goal, many more cautioned against such a reliance at this moment. Numerous respondents noted that relying on the 2003 Act would expose jury members to an unacceptable risk of intimidation and undermine the administration of justice. Indeed, the provisions of the 2003 Act are so restrictive that only one case has ever been tried from the start by a judge sitting alone under them. That stands in contrast to the small number of cases that the Director of Public Prosecutions authorises under the Justice and Security Act each year. Other responses noted that reliance on the 2003 Act at this stage would impact detrimentally on the potential to obtain sufficient jurors to sit in high-profile terrorist cases.
I hope that hon. Members agree that the safety of people in Northern Ireland and the administration of justice are paramount. The Government remain committed to working strategically with security partners to tackle the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism and to support the Northern Ireland Executive’s programme to tackle paramilitary activity. However, we are not prepared to put the safety of individuals or the administration of justice at risk, and we believe that there has not been sufficient change in the Northern Ireland security situation over the last two years to demonstrate that non-jury trial provisions are no longer required.
As part of the consultation process, a number of constructive suggestions were made for alternative arrangements to the non-jury trial provisions in the 2007 Act, as well as proposals to improve the operation of the current regime. Northern Ireland Office officials are considering the viability of these proposals, as well as any recommendations that may be made in the forthcoming report of the independent reviewer of the Justice and Security Act. These will then be tested with the non-jury trial working group before it is determined whether they should be taken forward.
In the light of all the evidence before him, the Secretary of State has decided to seek a renewal of the non-jury trial provisions for a further two years but to keep them under regular, independent review. I assure members of the Committee that the decision was not taken lightly and that all relevant factors have been weighed up. I believe that I can count on the support of the whole Committee in the Government’s work to safeguard the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and to normalise security arrangements as soon as it is safe to do so.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray.
I thank the Minister for bringing this instrument forward and for the ongoing work of the Northern Ireland Office in the continuous review of the effectiveness and necessity of non-jury trials. The work undertaken to review this measure, and the continued engagement of the multidisciplinary working group, have provided the assurances that this instrument to extend the duration of non-jury trial provisions is needed, and we will not oppose it.
The provision for non-jury trials is a little-used but vital tool in ensuring the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. Although its use primarily reflects the legacy of the troubles, the current security context, in which the threat level in Northern Ireland was raised in March this year from “substantial” to “severe”, means there are serious concerns about the influence that paramilitary groups will attempt to exert on jurors, as the Minister discussed.
This extension is clearly necessary at this time, but I am hopeful that, over the coming years, we will be in position where the non-jury trial system as it stands in Northern Ireland is not needed at all.
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for the approach she has taken and for her support. I am also grateful to all the officials, members of the public and others who have participated in bringing forward this order. I finish by saying that I share with the hon. Lady the hope that we can normalise the situation in Northern Ireland together in the spirit of good will.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. The regulations were laid in draft before the House on 20 April. They amend the Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023. Since those regulations came into force, further engagement with stakeholders has brought to our attention two key issues that the regulations before us today seek to resolve. We have also taken the opportunity to pursue additional amendments that improve the clarity of provisions.
The regulations introduce two key changes, but I assure the Committee from the outset that the changes being introduced are not a change of policy. Instead, they seek to rectify ambiguities and correct omissions. The data reporting requirements require producers of packaging to collect and report data on the amount and type of packaging that they place on the market, and that will be used to calculate the fees that producers will pay to cover the costs of managing the packaging as part of the extended producer responsibility scheme from 2024.
The regulations add to the obligations of importers. Erroneously omitted from the original statutory instruments, importers will need to report packaging that they import and then subsequently dispose of without supplying onwards. It was always our intention to include such packaging, and it is packaging that importers already collect and report under the original and ongoing packaging producer responsibility scheme. The amendment is crucial to ensuring a properly functioning extended producer responsibility scheme, and we estimate that the amount of packaging it relates to is approximately 1 million tonnes, or about 8% of the packaging placed on the market every year in the United Kingdom. If that packaging went unreported, it would seriously hamper the proper functioning of the packaging recovery note system and would also lead to a distortion of the producer fees that will be payable under the EPR.
The SI makes changes that reduce uncertainty around the definition of brand owner. The amendments address two main scenarios. The first is where there is more than one brand printed on the packaging. For example, a limited edition chocolate Easter egg—I know Easter is over—might have a separate brand’s toy inside. The amendments make it clear that it is the brand who first sells the packaged product who is responsible. In that instance, it would be the brand owner of the Easter egg, not the brand owner of the toy.
The second scenario is when multiple items from different brands are grouped together in a single sales unit. An example would be the Sunday Times wine box. The amendments make it clear that the brand who brings the other products together into one product should be responsible for any packaging it adds. So The Sunday Times would be obligated for the cardboard box, and the wine producers would be obligated for the wine bottles inside the box. I am not sure how many Members shop at Harrods, but a second example would be a Harrods hamper. Harrods would be responsible for the basket and straw, while the producers of the champagne and caviar that you had purchased, Sir Gary, would be responsible for the glass bottle and the container.
The regulations also make a number of other changes, which I will discuss briefly. The amendments will provide further clarification on the data reporting requirements for reusable and refillable packaging, and will simplify the reporting process. At the moment, producers would need to report whether their reusable product was refilled at home or in store; a range of models are used for this sort of scheme, as hon. Members may or may not know from partaking in some of them.
Let me give the Committee an example for clarification. When my Ecover washing up bottle is empty, I take it to a store in my nearby town of Wellington, where I refill it from the store’s big canister. The amendments remove the need to describe the type of reusable system being used—that is, that I went to a store to do it—and that will reduce burdens on producers. However, the key data will continue to be reported to inform policy development ahead of introducing new measures to increase the uptake of reuse and refill systems in 2025, which is obviously to be encouraged and will very much be encouraged at a later date.
The key data is the amount of reusable packaging a producer has supplied and whether it is termed “primary packaging”. Primary packaging is the packaging that surrounds a product and forms a sales unit to the customer—for example, a reusable Ecover bottle. Secondary and tertiary packaging is packaging that businesses interact with and that is typically removed before the product is sold to a consumer—for example, cardboard boxes used for display purposes or pallets used in distribution. The changes will also allow producers that have instituted reuse systems of their own to offset the packaging at the end of life, giving them a discount on their EPR disposal fees when they have collected and sent the packaging for recycling once it has become waste. The amendments also include minor corrections to the drafting and fix some incorrect cross-references.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
May I take the Minister back to her Sunday Times wine club example—other wine clubs presumably are available—when she said that the cardboard would be the responsibility of the Sunday Times wine club and the glass bottle would be that of the wine producer? Would I be right that if the wine were imported, as I think is the case for nearly every Sunday Times wine club bottle that my wife has ever had, the Sunday Times wine club would be responsible for the glass as well and not only the box?
Rebecca Pow
I will need to think about that for a minute. My hon. Friend is talking about imported products. The glass bottle will come under a different system of recycling anyway; it could go into our other kerbside schemes that are currently being developed—potentially deposit return. [Interruption.] I waited for a bit of inspiration, and apparently the answer is yes, if the wine club imported it.
I am sure there will be some other examples, because in getting the data gathering system up and running, lots of tiny nuances have arisen. That is why producers have come to us to point out the anomalies, which we have to fix; and that is what we are doing today. These amending regulations will apply to England only, but similar regulations are being progressed and amended where needed in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. My officials have worked closely with the relevant departments in the devolved Administrations in the development of this legislation.
In conclusion, the measures in the draft regulations are crucial for enabling the effective implementation of the extended producer responsibility for packaging and realising its associated environmental benefits. I commend them to the House.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again this morning, Sir Gary. What better way to start this late spring Tuesday morning than by talking about the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and our collective responsibility to protect our planet and preserve our environment?
The regulations require producers of packaging to collect and report data on the amount and type of packaging they place on the market. The data is required to calculate the fees the producers will be required to pay to cover the cost of managing the packaging as part of the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme, which is planned to start in 2024. The EPR for packaging scheme will be created by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2023, which will include equivalent provisions on the collection and reporting of data and will replace these regulations.
We will not oppose today’s regulations, but before everyone heads to the hills again, it is important to be clear with Ministers about our concerns, which sit around a failure to show the bold and comprehensive leadership required to really tackle the waste crisis facing our country. Each year, consumers across the UK are estimated to get through 14 billion plastic bottles, 9 billion aluminium and steel cans, and 1.5 billion glass bottles. That is a serious amount of waste, and Ministers need to get a grip on how we tackle it. The current inadequacies in waste collection and recycling systems mean that used compostable packaging ends up in landfill or incineration or messes up recycling plants because some of the materials used can be just as resistant to degrading as conventional plastics.
In preparing for this morning’s discussions, I was advised that delivery of this scheme is running far behind even the relatively modest new proposed targets to reduce residual waste per capita by 50% by 2042 and to raise the current municipal recycling target of 65% by 2035 to between 70% and 75% by 2042. Will the Minister therefore outline what discussions she had with the devolved Administrations ahead of the drafting of this statutory instrument? As she will know, Wales has long been a stand-out performer in the UK when it comes to recycling rates. The Welsh Labour Government’s £1 billion investment in household recycling since devolution has helped see their rates catapult from just 4.8% in 1998 to over 65% in 2020. That shows what ambition and will, together with real investment and focus, can deliver when it comes to cleaning our waters, streets and communities.
In setting up this new system to hold producers responsible for the waste they create, the Government must be careful not to repeat mistakes from the previous system. I therefore have three questions for the Minister. First—I have raised this before—will she take all necessary steps to ensure that all packaging is properly accounted for? She has already outlined the intricacies of this new system and the potential for confusion. Secondly, will she be very clear for the benefit of the Committee that the new system will improve the quality of data, compared with the system it is replacing?
Finally, when we discussed this issue previously, I touched on the impact on small businesses and local government. Will the Minister set out in detail what support there will be to ensure that businesses and producers are ready for 2024 and the new system while they grapple with the new legislation coming in next year? Importantly, what discussions has she had with local government representatives on this issue? I am sure she will be delighted, as I am, that Labour is now the largest party in local government, and my Labour colleagues stand ready to help clean up after 13 years of Tory inaction.
Without clarity, understanding or action, this SI and the issues it refers to will be what we have become used to: more of the same dither and delay. I therefore urge the Minister to take all steps necessary to get this issue sorted.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Labour Minister for supporting this SI. I think she can see that it is just about a couple of much-needed tweaks to the system.
The hon. Lady referred to getting accurate data, and I think the regulations demonstrate that we are completely on that. The system will not work properly if there are anomalies that distort it. Some of the measures I have mentioned relate to about 1 million tonnes of plastic—8% of the total—and without this SI that could potentially distort the system. It is on the data being gathered that the fees will be calculated to pay the local authorities to do consistent collections, so it is important to get the data right. She raised an important point, but that is why we have introduced this SI and why we continue to work with business and industry. We have been doing that very closely since this started. They have fed back as we have been going along, and we have listened to that. We have listened to them from the very beginning because we wanted to ensure that, although the costs are being put on to businesses to deal with the packaging that they put into the market and the taxpayer no longer has to deal with it, we still do not want that to be over-burdensome. As a result, we have worked to reduce the costs that they face.
The hon. Lady asked about what we were doing with buinesses. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set up a business-readiness forum and also a local authority forum. She asked about local authorities in particular. That is obviously the other end that is really important to keep businesses, producers and local authorities up to date about the changes. They have been meeting regularly since January, which is when we recommended companies to start gathering the data voluntarily. The official legal date for the data gathering was in March. Those conversations are ongoing—
Ruth Jones
I just want to highlight the fact that the packaging industry is still anxious about the data it is collecting. Is it the data that, as the Minister has outlined, the fees will be paid on? It accepts and has no problem with the principle of EPR, but is still anxious about the confusion about data collection. Small businesses in particular are really anxious about this.
Rebecca Pow
Of course, the data is being collected only by companies with a certain turnover and a certain tonnage, so many small businesses are not involved in this. We have listened to them, and the placing of that threshold came out of the consultation. If she would like that in writing, we can clarify the tonnage and where the data is cut off. It is those with a turnover of £2 million and handling 50 tonnes of packaging a year. We thought carefully about where to place that threshold.
On top of the forums, we have delivered a series of information webinars. More will take place, with more engagement through a fortnightly newsletter to business and industry and lots of one-to-one engagement. We are still encouraging that because, if there are still areas to iron out, we need to know about it. There were also a series of eight-week visioning events to consider the long-term future of all those collection and packaging reforms. They involved producers, trade associations, local authorities, waste management companies and environmental non-governmental organisations. I hope that answers the question satisfactorily.
I thank the Committee for its input. I can see other Members thinking about examples of what will be captured through this SI, and I would like to stress that the SI will make crucial changes to the Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023. It will ensure the proper functioning of the packaging recycling note evidence scheme and that fair producer fees are set, which reflect the true amount of packaging that arises as waste in the UK.
The amendment will also firm up the definition of “brand owner”, ensuring that producers have confidence in where their obligations lie. Finally, further amendments made through these regulations will provide clarification on producer reporting as well as correct minor inaccuracies in the drafting. Once again, I thank all of those on the Committee from both the Government and Opposition for supporting this SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by sections 41(1), (2)(d), (3) and (5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. They implement increases in weight limits by up to a maximum of 1 tonne for certain alternatively fuelled heavy goods vehicles and by a flat 2 tonnes for certain zero-emission vehicles. In all cases, the maximum weight limits for individual axles will remain unchanged.
No additional weight allowance for zero-emission or alternatively fuelled vehicles will apply to the heaviest articulated lorry and road train combinations, of 44 tonnes, or to four-axle motor vehicles of 32 tonnes. The extra weight allowances do apply to articulated lorries and roadtrain combinations with five or six axles, normally limited to 40 tonnes. They also apply to four-axle combinations, normally limited to 36 or 38 tonnes, and to certain smaller zero-emission lorries with two or three axles. In addition, they apply to zero-emission three-axle articulated buses. Two or three-axle alternatively fuelled versions of these types can already operate at up to 1 tonne above the normal limits.
Implementing these changes will provide domestic operators with the flexibility already available to those from the EU operating in Great Britain. Within the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, under appendix 31-C-1-1, the maximum authorised weights for certain vehicles carrying out movements under the agreement have been increased.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I very much welcome the instrument the Minister is bringing forward. It will help to deliver the Government’s net zero strategy by encouraging the adoption of ultra low and zero-emission vehicles. Does he agree that encouraging the switch to lower-carbon and zero-carbon driving is a better way to address climate and pollution matters than trying to drive vehicles off the road through things such as the ultra low emission zone in London?
Mr Holden
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree. The best option is providing alternatives through public transport and also, wherever possible, assistance to those wanting to switch, as we are doing today with the HGV sector. That will also include hydrogen, which will be important for some of the longer-distance lorries, as well as for electric vehicles. My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
The agreement applies to vehicles used on international journeys and to EU vehicles operating in the UK on cabotage. The allowances are to accommodate the additional weight of alternative fuel technology up to a maximum of 1 tonne and, for a zero-emission technology, 2 extra tonnes.
To put the regulations in context, transport is the biggest greenhouse gas-emitting sector of our economy, and road freight is a significant contributor to that. In 2021, HGVs produced around 20% of greenhouse gas emissions from our domestic transport network. Utilising zero-emission and alternatively fuelled freight vehicles can contribute positively to freight decarbonisation and help with achieving the UK’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050.
A vehicle’s powertrain consists of the components that generate power and then transmit it to the road to move the vehicle. Currently, alternatively fuelled and zero-emission heavy goods vehicles may have a heavier powertrain technology than traditionally fuelled internal combustion engine heavy goods vehicles. For example, a pressurised fuel tank in an alternatively fuelled vehicle, or batteries in a zero-emission vehicle, can be significantly heavier than a conventional petrol or diesel fuel tank—I saw some examples recently on a visit to DHL in the midlands.
The typically heavier powertrains of these vehicles mean that, under current regulations, alternatively fuelled and zero-emission HGVs may have to carry a reduced amount of cargo than comparable fossil fuel vehicles. This places them at a competitive disadvantage. The higher weight of the empty vehicles acts as a payload penalty, which then decreases the commercial viability of zero or lower-emission vehicles.
The regulations would afford zero-emission vehicles a weight increase of 2 tonnes, as opposed to the maximum 1 tonne increase offered to alternatively fuelled vehicles, as the features that make them zero emission—particularly the batteries—are likely to be heavier, although I think we all hope that these provisions will be needed less as the technology continues to improve over time. This approach further incentivises the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, bringing potential benefits via emission reductions.
A public consultation asking whether to permit alternatively fuelled or zero-emission vehicles to have that slightly higher weight limit was carried out between 14 July and 3 September 2021 as part of a wider consultation on the phase-out dates for sales of new non-zero-emission heavy goods vehicles. Of the responses received, 59% were in favour of the increase in weight limits, with only 6% opposed and the remainder being “Don’t know”. A Government response confirming our intention to introduce these changes was published on 12 May 2022.
Let me turn to the contents of the statutory instrument. Amendments will be made to the Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations 1998 by making provision to increase the maximum authorised weight for certain alternatively fuelled and zero-emission vehicles. Amendments will also be made to add a definition of “zero-emission vehicle”. The regulations provide for the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the regulatory provision contained in these regulations on a five-yearly basis. That is to account for the rapid deployment of technology and to ensure that increased weight limits remain suitable.
To conclude, the regulations are essential for supporting the commercial viability of zero-emission and alternatively fuelled commercial heavy goods vehicles. They do not involve any regulatory burden on domestic road freight operators. Instead, they aim to give flexibility to those using zero-emission or alternatively fuelled HGVs. The de minimis assessment identifies a best-estimate monetised net present value over the years of £18.2 million, which relates to the greater business efficiency as a result of these measures. There are also unmonetised costs, such as infrastructure costs, and unmonetised benefits, such as a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The regulations will also ensure parity of regulation, meaning that domestic operators will not be placed at a disadvantage to their European counterparts. I hope Members will join me in supporting the regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Dowd. Decarbonising our roads is a vital part of meeting our net zero obligations. As our haulage sector moves towards electric and alternatively fuelled HGVs, it is right that regulations adapt to the heavier powertrains these vehicles carry. I note that the consultation outcome was largely in favour of that approach, but there are a few points that I hope the Minister can address.
First, these extra weight allowances will inevitably put extra pressure on the condition of our already crumbling roads. The latest annual local authority road maintenance survey shows a drop in the number of roads in a good state of repair, fuelled by real-terms cuts in highway maintenance budgets. With that in mind, what assurances can the Minister offer that this extra weight on our roads will not lead to yet more misery for motorists?
Industry leaders are warning that car parks and bridges could face collapse due to the added weight of electric vehicles, including HGVs. That is a growing concern for the public, so will the Minister outline what his Department is doing to ensure that our car parks and bridges remain safe?
I want to ensure that, with bigger size, there is more charging. Will the Minister let me know exactly what the programme is to accelerate the roll-out of the charging stations that people will rely on throughout their journey?
To conclude, we must not miss this opportunity to decarbonise our transport sector and encourage a switch to zero-emission vehicles. The Labour party will therefore not oppose these regulations.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. My party will not be voting against the measures that the Government are bringing forward; in fact, we support them. However, as usual with my support for anything Conservative, there is a “but”, and it is in the form of a couple of queries for the Minister.
I have heard from industry that what is essentially 2 tonnes of extra payload for most HGVs would overload the rear axle. The Minister may be aware of that, so perhaps he can tell us what he plans to do about it. As it stands, some of what is proposed may be undeliverable for the industry.
Secondly, the regulations are limited to a number of vehicles and do not include 44-tonne HGVs, which currently make up a quarter of the UK fleet. Could the Minister tell us why the weight limit has not increased for the 44-tonne HGVs as well? That would give us a clue about the future direction, because an increase to 48 tonnes overall could potentially be accommodated.
That being said, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough mentioned, the road network will not be any easier to maintain with all these weight increases to HGVs. What will the Government do to make sure that councils have the money to ensure that local road networks are adequate? As I saw on the Transport Committee visit to Buckinghamshire, local roads have been badly impacted by HGVs related to High Speed 2.
Those are my three questions for the Minister. If he could address them, I would be grateful.
Mr Holden
I will attempt to address some of the points that have been raised. The common theme in the comments from both Opposition Front Benchers was road maintenance and repair. I hope that, like me, they will welcome the extra £200 million announced in the Budget this year, as well as the £950 million a year that we put in, split between councils and National Highways. I would also point out that as parts of our motorway network, in particular, including bridges and other important structures, move towards the end of their life over the next few years and need to be replaced, an enormous and increasing amount will go into that space to address some of those issues. So a huge amount is going into the maintenance of the network, not just to repair potholes but to carry out major structural improvements as well.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North made a point about 44-tonners, and the decision on them was taken specifically to match our European counterparts so that we are not at a disadvantage. There may be further consideration in that space, but we are not doing that at the moment.
As I said in my opening speech, the provisions will be reviewed every five years. We are hoping to see technological change, and we have already seen a major shift in the weight of electric batteries, for instance. As other products—perhaps not even known today—become available in terms of conductivity, there is the possibility of reducing the weight of some of these elements. Hopefully, in time, there will be a large change. As I said in my opening speech, the limits per axle are not changing; it is just the overall weight.
The hon. Lady talked more broadly about our road network. It is important to reflect on the fact that the UK Government are still investing in our road network and making substantial improvements. I was up in the north-west recently and saw a road being built to better connect Blackpool to the M6. It is a shame that some of the devolved Administrations across the country, and particularly Wales, are rejecting any form of new road building, especially when we are now seeing this major shift, in terms of our road network capacity, to low-emission and zero-emission vehicles. The road network has an important role to play in decarbonising our economy, while ensuring that opportunity for people is spread right across the country and that they can remain as connected as possible.
To conclude, I hope the Committee has found the debate informative and that it will join me in supporting the regulations, which will amend legislation to allow weight increases by up to 1 tonne for alternatively fuelled vehicles and by 2 tonnes for zero-emission vehicles. These changes are to support the commercial viability of those vehicles and to ensure regulatory harmony with our international competitors. Adaptation of these vehicle types will help reduce emissions from what has to date been a hard-to-abate part of the transport system, moving us closer to our 2050 net zero target.
Question put and agreed to.